NationStates Jolt Archive

Sometimes I wonder, as I walk into a store, that if I should be allowed to take what I wanted to if I was able to get away with it.

Is it not a capitalistic idea that if you have the ability, you should use it?

What if your ability is to be able to shoplift? Should you use that?

The other day I was in this little store in a mall. I figured that if this store was able to be located in such a high-traffic mall, I should be able to steal small stuff (like cheap $1 rings that meant to look expensive) and it would have no effect on the company but it may do me some good (Free rings for everyone!).

I found coupons that have been scanned and put on the internet for $10 off any videogame $29.99 and up for Best Buy yesterday. Of course I printed them out. Of course I know I'll end up with a cashier who couldn't care less (or is it could care less?) and end up just giving me the discount no matter if he/she thought the coupon was legit or not. Is it not the fault of the company and not me? Am I not just enforcing competition?

Every couple days I walk into the school cafeteria and steal a handful of $1 muffins for me and my friends. We've totalled up how many muffins I've stolen. The count is over 66 muffins, which is about $66 in lost profits for the company the school contracts with.

Is this wrong? Do I have a right in any way to steal from faceless corporations? It's definately true that stealing from an individual is wrong in most cases, but what of stealing from big-name companies who cannot possibly be hurt by this?

Employees do it all the time...

Eh, all rich-men are thieves. Your guilt depends upon your audience's opinion of Robin Hood.

Eh, all rich-men are thieves. Your guilt depends upon your audience's opinion of Robin Hood.
So basically embrace my newfound given nickname of "The Muffin Man"?

Sounds good.

Eh, all rich-men are thieves. Your guilt depends upon your audience's opinion of Robin Hood.

I shall have to remember to tell my father that...after he reminds me of how he rose from near poverty, entered school 2 years early, worked a full-time summer job starting at the age of 10 through University, and earned a Medical Degree.

I have not known a more honorable man in my life.

...you would be wise to limit your generalizations, Beth Gellert.

No, I wouldn't. I would be a fool (I'm trying not to say, "like you..." but it doesn't look like I'm going to manage it, eh).

I shall have to remember to tell my father that...after he reminds me of how he rose from near poverty, entered school 2 years early, worked a full-time summer job starting at the age of 10 through University, and earned a Medical Degree.

I have not known a more honorable man in my life.

...you would be wise to limit your generalizations, Beth Gellert.
Yeah I gotta second that.

No, I wouldn't. I would be a fool (I'm trying not to say, "like you..." but it doesn't look like I'm going to manage it, eh).

Wow!

First you imply my father is a thief because he has money, and then you call me a fool for having the temerity to suggest you limit your generalizations.

Well done!

That's just not right, Tibetia.

Rich men are thieves often largely through ignorance rather than intent of malice. You are foolish out of naivety and ignorance rather than inability or idiocy.

Take these things as fact and dedicate your appropriate resources to investigating just why they might be so and you will become a better person for it.

Of course ,it probably won't help the world, but simply for the sake of being correct...

I have to disagree. Sure, I shoplifted a couple of little things when I wasn't quite a teenager and it was the "cool" thing to do, but if you've worked in retail, everything costs money to the store. If you just took whatever you wanted, there'd be no more store, you'd no longer be able to take the things, and less stores would want to open up because they'd just be stolen out and lose loads of money just because you felt like you wanted a new multi-hundred dollar stereo system (or whatever).

Coupons are generally "One per purchase" and they wouldn't be put out if the end price wasn't still giving the store some small margin of profit. Maybe not as much as they would have otherwise, but they put out coupons so that they get more business, even if it means a little less profit on each item. (And it is "couldn't care less", since you asked. They physically could not have any less emotion about it. If they could care less, they'd care and not let you use the coupon. *Recovering grammarphile* >.>; )

What chapped my hide was the shoplifters that would get pissed at us when they where caught, like it was our fault. Bitch, you knew we would have a problem with it, that's why you put it down your pants instead of waving it above your head. The tag doesn't read "$9.99 if you feel like it," prick. Fuck, fine-you tried to shoplift, but if you suck at it enough for us to catch you don't get mad at us.

And because I just posted in a poetry thread...
I'm sick of your insane demands.
When can I go into the supermarket and buy what I need with my good looks?
Excerpt from America by Allen Ginsberg

Sometimes I wonder, as I walk into a store, that if I should be allowed to take what I wanted to if I was able to get away with it.
Err... syntax error in line one!

This makes no sense.

Is it not a capitalistic idea that if you have the ability, you should use it?
No, since we all [technically] have the ability to end another life; that doesn't mean it should be done. On the contrary, it is a capitalistic idea to pay for things.

What if your ability is to be able to shoplift? Should you use that?
What if your ability is to reach through your computer monitor and strangle the life out of people anonymously? Should you use that?

Seriously, this is nothing but unbridled sophistry. The case you seem to be making here is that "because it can be done, it should be done."

The other day I was in this little store in a mall. I figured that if this store was able to be located in such a high-traffic mall, I should be able to steal small stuff (like cheap $1 rings that meant to look expensive) and it would have no effect on the company but it may do me some good (Free rings for everyone!).

I found coupons that have been scanned and put on the internet for $10 off any videogame $29.99 and up for Best Buy yesterday. Of course I printed them out. Of course I know I'll end up with a cashier who couldn't care less (or is it could care less?) and end up just giving me the discount no matter if he/she thought the coupon was legit or not. Is it not the fault of the company and not me? Am I not just enforcing competition?

Every couple days I walk into the school cafeteria and steal a handful of $1 muffins for me and my friends. We've totalled up how many muffins I've stolen. The count is over 66 muffins, which is about $66 in lost profits for the company the school contracts with.

Is this wrong? Do I have a right in any way to steal from faceless corporations? It's definately true that stealing from an individual is wrong in most cases, but what of stealing from big-name companies who cannot possibly be hurt by this?
This is one of the most erroneous, ridiculous, and sickeningly immoral things I've ever seen; if you had any sense of justice [which I've rapidly come to doubt] you'd be goddamn ashamed of yourself. Stealing things only drives up the costs of those goods for everyone else, since the company [which "cant be hurt" by larceny] has to then make up for lost inventory. If enough people do it, their budget cuts will become more and more significant. It's also a distinct possibility that they'll start to notice, and may erroneously blame an employee, who will then promptly be fired for no better reason than you think its OK to steal the products he's been distributing to your school.

Are they going to be hurt if one guy steals from them? You're right; they probably won't--more than one guy probably already does. But what kind of boat are we going to be in if your "reasoning" [I use the term loosely] becomes the prevailing attitude? Would you want to live in a world where everyone thought like this? I'd like to see you try to make a living in such an environment.

Eh, all rich-men are thieves. Your guilt depends upon your audience's opinion of Robin Hood.
I'm going to have to call bullshit. How, exactly, is it 'theivery' to provide a product or service to the masses? Marxists often speak of 'the people' owning the means of production, but isn't that exactly what capitalism is? If a private citizen is barred from owning a business and is prohibited from turning $1 into $2, how can you tell me with a straight face that he has anything to do with production at all?

Some rich men are theives, some are not. My guess would be that there are about as many rich theives as poor ones.

The most fundamental concept of capitalism, IMO, is a belief in the right of each man to life, liberty, and property. In fact, of the few things that capitalists believe the government should exist for, the protection of property rights stands as one of the most important. It's far easier for a socialist to justify shoplifting, in the name of the moral perception behind Robin Hood ethics, then it is a capitalist.

Social conservatives and economic liberals shoplift individual rights on a daily basis, in the name of a social goal. We capitalists believe in the justice and reason behind a system interested only in the protection of such rights ;)

The most fundamental concept of capitalism, IMO, is a belief in the right of each man to life, liberty, and property. In fact, of the few things that capitalists believe the government should exist for, the protection of property rights stands as one of the most important. It's far easier for a socialist to justify shoplifting, in the name of the moral perception behind Robin Hood ethics, then it is a capitalist.

Social conservatives and economic liberals shoplift individual rights on a daily basis, in the name of a social goal. We capitalists believe in the justice and reason behind a system interested only in the protection of such rights ;)
Testify!

So do I finally have some competition now, or what? :eek:

Competition? What do you mean by that?

Competition? What do you mean by that?
I couldn't help but notice the Rand quote in your signature [not to mention your argumet]--I'm asking you in a roundabout way if you're an Objectivist. For some time now I've been the only one in these parts.

I don't really think I've had enough experience yet with the philosophy to consider myself a true objectivist, but yes, I do adhere to most of it. My opinions on the existence of God (though not my religious beliefs as a whole ;) ) are pretty much the only serious divergence.

Before this, I was your average Christian conservative. And I even didn't have too much of a problem with socialism. Go figure :)

Sometimes I wonder, as I walk into a store, that if I should be allowed to take what I wanted to if I was able to get away with it.



You can't be allowed to take something if they don't know you took it. But what I think you mean is if you can get away with it should you do it? The answer is, it's your life do whatever the hell you want.

If you want to shoplift all day go ahead but you will probably eventually get caught and trust me it will suck. If you are prepared to face the possible concequences than go ahead (all good theives know that one day they will probably get caught and are constantly ready for this to happen).

On the moral side you are lowering profit for a business you steal from, albeit slowly. This will hurt the business itself, its customers, and its employees. Maybe it is a small pain but it is there none-the-less. If you don't care then take what you will but they will try to catch you and they will show no mercy when they do. Just make sure you smile real big when they catch you and take the penalty like a man.

I don't really think I've had enough experience yet with the philosophy to consider myself a true objectivist, but yes, I do adhere to most of it. My opinions on the existence of God (though not my religious beliefs as a whole ;) ) are pretty much the only serious divergence.

Before this, I was your average Christian conservative. And I even didn't have too much of a problem with socialism. Go figure :)
I can live with that, I suppose. I gain a nominal ally but remain the only orthodox Objectivist in General. I'm kind of digging this lone wolf thing. :D

I can live with that, I suppose. I gain a nominal ally but remain the only orthodox Objectivist in General. I'm kind of digging this lone wolf thing. :D
perhaps the only "orthodox" one, but I do tend to agree on many points. I'm just usually less quick to actually get into debates

Sometimes I wonder, as I walk into a store, that if I should be allowed to take what I wanted to if I was able to get away with it.

Is it not a capitalistic idea that if you have the ability, you should use it?

What if your ability is to be able to shoplift? Should you use that?

The other day I was in this little store in a mall. I figured that if this store was able to be located in such a high-traffic mall, I should be able to steal small stuff (like cheap $1 rings that meant to look expensive) and it would have no effect on the company but it may do me some good (Free rings for everyone!).

I found coupons that have been scanned and put on the internet for $10 off any videogame $29.99 and up for Best Buy yesterday. Of course I printed them out. Of course I know I'll end up with a cashier who couldn't care less (or is it could care less?) and end up just giving me the discount no matter if he/she thought the coupon was legit or not. Is it not the fault of the company and not me? Am I not just enforcing competition?

Every couple days I walk into the school cafeteria and steal a handful of $1 muffins for me and my friends. We've totalled up how many muffins I've stolen. The count is over 66 muffins, which is about $66 in lost profits for the company the school contracts with.

Is this wrong? Do I have a right in any way to steal from faceless corporations? It's definately true that stealing from an individual is wrong in most cases, but what of stealing from big-name companies who cannot possibly be hurt by this?


Shoplifting is a bad idea. Beyond just being wrong, you can get yourself into a lot of trouble, even for small things. All through college I worked loss prevention in a high end department store catching professional and amateur shoplifters and the consequences for petty theft can be pretty high. Most states have cost recorvery laws that allow them to automatically sue shoplifters for the costs incurred in their apprehension. That means that you'll get a civil complaint complaint for the cost of my wages and benefits during the time I watched, apprehended, and filled out paperwork, the cost of the videotapes pulled, the cost of my supervisor's wages when they review the evidence, the cost of long term evidence storage, and just about anything else the company can think of. Try explaining to your parents why they're being sued for $600.00 (which is the settlement cost, they can expect double that plus court costs if they challenge) because you decided to get a thrill of out palming a one dollar ring. It is also not uncommon for some stores to prosecute on any amount, which means a trip to the local lockup with police that are very angry they have to fill out paperwork on a misdemeanor like you.

Also, petty theft is just uncouth. I mean its really, really trashy.

What chapped my hide was the shoplifters that would get pissed at us when they where caught, like it was our fault. Bitch, you knew we would have a problem with it, that's why you put it down your pants instead of waving it above your head. The tag doesn't read "$9.99 if you feel like it," prick. Fuck, fine-you tried to shoplift, but if you suck at it enough for us to catch you don't get mad at us.

Heh, thats called resisting, especially if they're in a camera blind spot. Down to the floor face first, on with cuffs, and we add an assault charge to the ticket, thanks for playing...

Seriously, retail employees don't get paid enough to put up with whiney bullshit from thieves.

Sometimes I wonder, as I walk into a store, that if I should be allowed to take what I wanted to if I was able to get away with it.

Is it not a capitalistic idea that if you have the ability, you should use it?

No, it's a communistic idea. "To each according to his need," etc. Who said that? Marx.

It takes more than ability in capitalism. It also takes consent. This is why communism is like rape, and capitalism is like 69.

Is this wrong? Do I have a right in any way to steal from faceless corporations?

Yes, and no, respectively.

I mean, if you're not at home, and I come in and steal something you can afford to replace, is that wrong? You're "faceless" to me. And it won't hurt you since you can replace it. But I would guess you'd object to it all the same. Since we live in a mostly capitalist economic system, you have a right to yours and "faceless" corporations have a right to theirs.

<what melkor said>

plus

you should have more self respect than to be a petty thief.

and

if you are gong to embark on a life of crime of any sort you should consider the consequences of being caught. the embarrassment, the embarassment to your parents, the legal fees (lawyers never come cheap), the school punishment for stealing muffins, the potential time in actual jail (even if its only a couple hours, jail can be very scary and quite dangerous), having theft on your record when you apply for jobs, i can probably think of more

it doesnt seem to be worth the $66 you are up so far. its a stupid thrill that can bite you hard on the ass.

Sometimes I wonder, as I walk into a store, that if I should be allowed to take what I wanted to if I was able to get away with it.

Is it not a capitalistic idea that if you have the ability, you should use it?

What if your ability is to be able to shoplift? Should you use that?


Suppose the merchant's ability were killing shoplifters with a butcher knife. By this sort of reasoning, it would seem unreasonable to deny him the exercise of his talent! Shoplifting is wrong because it is the unjustified taking of another's property, i.e., theft.:sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

If I steal a pair of Nikes, or a Hilfiger shirt, or whatever, It's a political statement more than me going "hell, I want this". Take how much they pay sweatshop slaves, subtract that from how much they make by charging insane amounts for their brand name, and take into account how insanely rich the corporate bastards of the company are.

They deserve a good kick to their pockets; in fact, I encourage a mass spree of countrywide shoplifting from these bastards.

If I steal a pair of Nikes, or a Hilfiger shirt, or whatever, It's a political statement more than me going "hell, I want this". Take how much they pay sweatshop slaves, subtract that from how much they make by charging insane amounts for their brand name, and take into account how insanely rich the corporate bastards of the company are.

They deserve a good kick to their pockets; in fact, I encourage a mass spree of countrywide shoplifting from these bastards.

So, if I rob you and burn down your house and kill your family, it's okay because I think it's a political statement? Crime is crime, no matter what.

Anyways, there's no such thing as an insane price or insanely wealthy. They charge a lot because people are willing to pay that much for it, and they are wealthy because they know how to compete and make a profit. That's the backbone of our entire economy.

Oh, and shoplifting just raises prices for everyone because it's the store that has to pay for it, not the company. They are still getting the profits and you are putting stores out of business. Good luck bringing down those evil corporations with that.

i don't commonly shoplift. When i was a kid i didn't know better so lots got stolen. Now i only steal when i have to; food and stuff. I don't steal clothes or other goods goods that aren't neccesities to me. I do what i have to to get by.

i don't commonly shoplift. When i was a kid i didn't know better so lots got stolen. Now i only steal when i have to; food and stuff. I don't steal clothes or other goods goods that aren't neccesities to me. I do what i have to to get by.

Like spend money on a computer and internet connection instead of food and clothes?

i don't commonly shoplift. When i was a kid i didn't know better so lots got stolen. Now i only steal when i have to; food and stuff. I don't steal clothes or other goods goods that aren't neccesities to me. I do what i have to to get by.

Wouldn't it make more sense to work? Stealing is a lot more risky and a lot less rewarding than working for money to buy things is.

Prices would go higher, people would no longer be able to afford them, company stops selling them, company loses money.


If you burned down my house, etc, and called it a political statement, you'd have to have reasoning behind it. Why would it be a political statement? Certainly not a moral statement, considering I've done nothing to you. I don't see things as "crime" and "legal", just as "wrong" and "right". Those four terms seem to be incredibly skewed within eachother at odd angles throughout the world.

Prices would go higher, people would no longer be able to afford them, company stops selling them, company loses money.

Not for the company, because that product would need to be replaced by the store, costing them money. The only way you could get the company is by getting stores to boycott them.


If you burned down my house, etc, and called it a political statement, you'd have to have reasoning behind it. Why would it be a political statement? Certainly not a moral statement, considering I've done nothing to you. I don't see things as "crime" and "legal", just as "wrong" and "right". Those four terms seem to be incredibly skewed within eachother at odd angles throughout the world.

That doesn't justify lawbreaking. If a law is broken, and that law is just, the lawbreaker deserves to be punished. Just laws are those made with the consent of the people.

If I steal a pair of Nikes, or a Hilfiger shirt, or whatever, It's a political statement more than me going "hell, I want this". Take how much they pay sweatshop slaves, subtract that from how much they make by charging insane amounts for their brand name, and take into account how insanely rich the corporate bastards of the company are.

They deserve a good kick to their pockets; in fact, I encourage a mass spree of countrywide shoplifting from these bastards.
gee that would sound much less like a self-justification if you advocated buying shoes and clothes that are made under union rules so that the workers arent exploited. that would still hurt the big corps' bottom line AND actually help someone besides yourself.

Not for the company, because that product would need to be replaced by the store, costing them money. The only way you could get the company is by getting stores to boycott them.




That doesn't justify lawbreaking. If a law is broken, and that law is just, the lawbreaker deserves to be punished. Just laws are those made with the consent of the people.


The product would be replaced at the cost of them having to order it from the company. Even if the store itself suffered and fell as a result, it would be an accomplishment for one of their appendages to be severed while the main goal would be to destroy the head.

Our morals differ, I suppose. I don't bow to the law at any cost, I tend to take into consideration what I think and whether or not I agree with it. When I see a republican fly over to a dirt-poor country we technically label as part of the USA so that the clothing manufacturers can say "Made In USA" on their crap and make people feel patriotic - Ranting. Sorry. Ahem - When I see a republican go over there and see what's happening (sweatshops, pseudoslavery, child labor, forced prostitution) and claim in all his ignorant glory that it's something like one of the most well-done and patriotic happenings within the party, saying they not only -support- those actions (while pointing at the front that they've set up, not the actual happenings), but encourage them and are proud that they're a part of it... Well, let's just say I find that quite illegal. To my intelligence, it's illegal. To my morals, it's illegal. To my country and all I see it representing, it's illegal and it shouldn't happen, regardless of what the 'law' says about it.

gee that would sound much less like a self-justification if you advocated buying shoes and clothes that are made under union rules so that the workers arent exploited. that would still hurt the big corps' bottom line AND actually help someone besides yourself.

A two-pronged attack seems like it would work, yes. While stealing from said corporations, supporting and soliciting for such shoes and clothing would benefit the entire movement. I hadn't thought of the second part, but thanks for suggesting it.

No, it's a communistic idea. "To each according to his need," etc. Who said that? Marx.

Nothing "communistic" about it, there is no "need" here. There is simply greed for an object, and a lack of desire to pay those who created it and gave him the opportunity to have it in the first place.

In certain extreme cases - say, a last resort for survival - shoplifting can be justified, but not when the shoplifter could easily pay but has no desire to do so.

It is true that socialism does not prioritize property rights as much as some of the more capitalistic ideologies, but independent of political ideology any reasonable moral standard should see these particular acts for what they are - an individual unjustly harming and depriving others for his own benefit.

The product would be replaced at the cost of them having to order it from the company. Even if the store itself suffered and fell as a result, it would be an accomplishment for one of their appendages to be severed while the main goal would be to destroy the head.


I don't think you get it. So you are willing to bankrupt a store that sells clothes that has nothing to do with the company you are trying to affect(except that some of their clothes come from said company)? Instead of making the corporation feel the pain you are willing to put people that need their job at the store, that are just making a living, into unemployment? This doesn't really make sense at all. And you did get it right. The cost is going to to store that has to order it from the company, so you are only affecting the store.

Those that support such stores needn't be employed, even at the lowest levels. Those that didn't support the store while being employed by it wouldn't be incredibly impacted by the loss of the job, seeing as they would be happier at it's destruction. There's always another job.

A two-pronged attack seems like it would work, yes. While stealing from said corporations, supporting and soliciting for such shoes and clothing would benefit the entire movement. I hadn't thought of the second part, but thanks for suggesting it.


The thing I don't get is why would you steal from a brand name that you don't want to support? By you wearing their clothing you are supporting the brand and though other people may not know you stole the items, they may just go out and buy it themselves just because they thought it looked cool. So I don't really get why you would steal from a company, wear their clothes but say you aren't supporting the company. Just by wearing the clothes, you are supporting them.

The thing I don't get is why would you steal from a brand name that you don't want to support? By you wearing their clothing you are supporting the brand and though other people may not know you stole the items, they may just go out and buy it themselves just because they thought it looked cool. So I don't really get why you would steal from a company, wear their clothes but say you aren't supporting the company. Just by wearing the clothes, you are supporting them.

Who said anything about -wearing- it? If anything, I'd scratch out all labels that signify it was from a certain brand and give it to the needy for warmth and clothing. The ones that can't be hidden as anonymous clothing would most likely be burned, though I'd try everything possible first as I'd much rather give it to someone who needs it.

If I steal a pair of Nikes, or a Hilfiger shirt, or whatever, It's a political statement more than me going "hell, I want this".

Yes, it is a "political statement," that not only do you want a pair of Nikes but that you could care less about Nikes' workers and all the other workers involved in producing and distributing that pair.

And even if the only people you were harming were the owners of the corporation, it would still be wrong because they are not unjustly exploiting you, they are unjustly exploiting others, and by stealing expropriated money all you are doing is shifting some of the benefits of that exploitation to you.

Those that support such stores needn't be employed, even at the lowest levels. Those that didn't support the store while being employed by it wouldn't be incredibly impacted by the loss of the job, seeing as they would be happier at it's destruction. There's always another job.

You say that as if you know everyone working at a store wouldn't be impacted by losing their job. You think you can just go out and get a job instantly? There is time involved in finding a job and some people can't afford that downtime. As hard as it might be to fathom, there are people out there that depend on such jobs as their main income.

You say that as if you know everyone working at a store wouldn't be impacted by losing their job. You think you can just go out and get a job instantly? There is time involved in finding a job and some people can't afford that downtime. As hard as it might be to fathom, there are people out there that depend on such jobs as their main income.

I know. They'd be in trouble, financially. Sacrifices, I suppose. To finally topple the actual enemy, huge sacrifices would have to be made, whether moral or legal or financial. I could just save everyone the trouble and kill the CEO's in their sleep and then firebomb the corporate headquarters, but I'm proposing the most nonviolent solution possible.

That, and I don't know how to make a solution that would firebomb something. Not like I'm employed by PETA.

I'm going to have to call bullshit. How, exactly, is it 'theivery' to provide a product or service to the masses? Marxists often speak of 'the people' owning the means of production, but isn't that exactly what capitalism is?
I've seen you claim to "fully understand" socialism, but I realise that is now bullshit. I'm not a Marxist, but "the people owning the means of production" is obviously not the same as "a person owning the means of production." Awww, Jeez! :rolleyes:

I can live with that, I suppose. I gain a nominal ally but remain the only orthodox Objectivist in General. I'm kind of digging this lone wolf thing. :D
Is "I am an orthodox [insert ideology]" something to be proud of? Think for yourself!

Who said anything about -wearing- it? If anything, I'd scratch out all labels that signify it was from a certain brand and give it to the needy for warmth and clothing. The ones that can't be hidden as anonymous clothing would most likely be burned, though I'd try everything possible first as I'd much rather give it to someone who needs it.
well robin, how is friar tuck these days? still as fiesty as ever?

and with that i declare that you are the puppet of someone wanting to take the piss anonymously

and decline to continue playing the game.

Is this wrong? Do I have a right in any way to steal from faceless corporations? It's definately true that stealing from an individual is wrong in most cases, but what of stealing from big-name companies who cannot possibly be hurt by this?

If stealing from big-name companies cannot possibly hurt them, then voting for the next U.S. president cannot possibly influence who wins. Oh well, might as well just stay at home on November 2, then.

well robin, how is friar tuck these days? still as fiesty as ever?

and with that i declare that you are the puppet of someone wanting to take the piss anonymously

and decline to continue playing the game.


I admit, I'm very Robinhoodian (there I go inventing words again) in my ideals and goals, but all I can do is insist you believe me when I say I believe it's for the greater good. All the biggest movements and changes in history have happened because of one person pushing his suggestions to the point of completion, regardless of what others have said about it. Some results have been good, some have been bad. Good: Luther going around whining about the church being corrupt until people paid attention and then making his own church. Bad: War. Almost all wars have been done in this fashion, especially when focused on the medieval times of kings.

Now, I'm not saying I'm actually going to do such things... just that I would like to. In the most intense way, my heart tells me I'd be completely justified in destroying everything related to anything corporate in this world. My mind and guts just don't seem to agree that it'd be a smart thing to do.

I suppose I could be described as nothing but the results of giving the leader of a grand revolution movement a sketchbook. I'm a drawing, and only a drawing, but I've got good shading and textures. Almost good enough to become real, but not quite.

So, if I rob you and burn down your house and kill your family, it's okay because I think it's a political statement? Crime is crime, no matter what.
There are things more important than the law. For example, nobody calls the students of The White Rose (http://www.jlrweb.com/whiterose/) a bunch of criminals, even though what they did was very much illegal.

That doesn't mean I think burning houses or shoplifting (in general) is OK though.

To deal with the Nike case specifically, I don't think that depriving the CEOs of their profits is that much of an evil thing to do. Why? Because they are obviously paid ridiculously large sums of money which are disproportionate to the amount of work they do.

Yes, it is a "political statement," that not only do you want a pair of Nikes but that you could care less about Nikes' workers and all the other workers involved in producing and distributing that pair.

You say it as if buying more Nike shoes will cause the people that actually make them to be paid more. Get real!

There are things more important than the law. For example, nobody calls the students of The White Rose (http://www.jlrweb.com/whiterose/) a bunch of criminals, even though what they did was very much illegal.

That doesn't mean I think burning houses or shoplifting (in general) is OK though.

To deal with the Nike case specifically, I don't think that depriving the CEOs of their profits is that much of an evil thing to do. Why? Because they are obviously paid ridiculously large sums of money which are disproportionate to the amount of work they do.


You say it as if buying more Nike shoes will cause the people that actually make them to be paid more. Get real!


At least not -everyone- is against me.

There are things more important than the law. For example, nobody calls the students of The White Rose (http://www.jlrweb.com/whiterose/) a bunch of criminals, even though what they did was very much illegal.

That doesn't mean I think burning houses or shoplifting (in general) is OK though.

Ah, but that goes against the qualifier I mentioned briefly. The law must be just, as in it does not harm innocent people to achieve its means, and it is supported either by national precedent or draws from the world's almost universal history of law codes. Gandhi broke the law, but he fought an unjust one, so he's not a criminal.

To deal with the Nike case specifically, I don't think that depriving the CEOs of their profits is that much of an evil thing to do. Why? Because they are obviously paid ridiculously large sums of money which are disproportionate to the amount of work they do.

But if they earned that money legitimately, you have no right to steal it. You have a right to reduce their profits and their income by boycotting the product, but stealing isn't justifiable; I mean, what's to stop a petty thief from using that argument that "they make enough already, so it's okay to take it from them" when he robs a middle class person.

To deal with the Nike case specifically, I don't think that depriving the CEOs of their profits is that much of an evil thing to do. Why? Because they are obviously paid ridiculously large sums of money which are disproportionate to the amount of work they do.
1) Workers aren't paid as much as CEOs for various reasons. One being that there are hundreds of thousands of them and THEIR LABOR AIN'T WORTH SHIT.

2) CEOs RUN the company. If they make a mistake, the entire company could fail. If a simple employee makes a mistake, usually not much happens. It takes skill to run a company and it takes time as well. They do more than sit at a desk and jerk-off to their profits.

Now, I'm not saying I'm actually going to do such things... just that I would like to. In the most intense way, my heart tells me I'd be completely justified in destroying everything related to anything corporate in this world. My mind and guts just don't seem to agree that it'd be a smart thing to do.

I suppose I could be described as nothing but the results of giving the leader of a grand revolution movement a sketchbook. I'm a drawing, and only a drawing, but I've got good shading and textures. Almost good enough to become real, but not quite.
You're borderline insane, or perhaps just immature. Not for believing that capitalism can be destroyed (it was created by humans after all), but for seeming to be completely unrealistic about it.

Given that most of the money goes to the rich, anyway, and I have yet to find an objective morality, I can't see why not. The working class made the stuff, so why should the rich own it and then sell it back to them?

You say it as if buying more Nike shoes will cause the people that actually make them to be paid more. Get real!

Only that isn't what I said.

The money you spend on a pair of Nike shoes does not simply go to the owners of Nike in profits. Only a portion of it does. The rest is spent on everything else - the wages of employees, the costs in shipping, space for the stores, the materials, etc. Ultimately a considerable piece of it goes to the capitalist class, the owners of Nike and the owners of all the companies Nike deals with in the process, but all the rest is going to labor, in one form or another.

Anyway, the people most likely to immediately suffer for your shoplifting are the people who work in the store, and thus you are exploiting them for your own benefit.

Given that most of the money goes to the rich, anyway, and I have yet to find an objective morality, I can't see why not. The working class made the stuff, so why should the rich own it and then sell it back to them?

The owners of the company hire and pay them to make the product, whose sale goes to pay the workers who made the product along with profit that is reinvested or returned via dividends.

It's not like these people are making the products for themselves, but companies come and take them to sell for a profit and then give them nothing for it.

Given that most of the money goes to the rich, anyway, and I have yet to find an objective morality, I can't see why not. The working class made the stuff, so why should the rich own it and then sell it back to them?

Because "the working class" isn't a person. Unless the person stealing actually DID make the stuff, you're just saying it's OK to steal from someone just because someone else should be able to own it. That's like me saying, "Well, a male made it, therefore I, as another male, should be able to own it!" and then stealing anything you make.

Given that most of the money goes to the rich, anyway, and I have yet to find an objective morality, I can't see why not. The working class made the stuff, so why should the rich own it and then sell it back to them?

The "working class" is not taking it back, one particular individual who may or may not be part of the working class is.

At best this is a mangled and distorted form of socialism, an unjust and likely counterproductive application of wealth redistribution.

stealing is wrong

people who aren't taught to respect the possessions of others (or their stores) are jailbait.

next time you're thinking of stealing from someone, ask yourself this:

"What if this were my store? Would I want people stealing from me?"

or

"If this were my watch, would I want someone stealing it?"

what's yours is yours and nobody has a right to take it from you. IF you want to share or sell it to them, that's your prerogative... but they have no right to take what you own. Stealing needs to be nipped in the bud -- catch someone staeling, fine and jail them so they don't do it again.

The "working class" is not taking it back, one particular individual who may or may not be part of the working class is.

At best this is a mangled and distorted form of socialism, an unjust and likely counterproductive application of wealth redistribution.

It's to benefit those who are taken advantage of by destroying those who take advantage of them. No companies to create sweatshops = no sweatshops. Simple as that. Making the company lose money by keeping open a particular location via shoplifting = company solves problem by shutting down location. Enough of these events will cause a significant problem for the main branch.

And don't use the term "borderline", it's degrading. =P Either call me insane or don't, make up your mind.

stealing is wrong

people who aren't taught to respect the possessions of others (or their stores) are jailbait.

next time you're thinking of stealing from someone, ask yourself this:

"What if this were my store? Would I want people stealing from me?"

or

"If this were my watch, would I want someone stealing it?"

what's yours is yours and nobody has a right to take it from you. IF you want to share or sell it to them, that's your prerogative... but they have no right to take what you own. Stealing needs to be nipped in the bud -- catch someone staeling, fine and jail them so they don't do it again.

I completely agree. I just have a different definition of what "stealing" is. Someone taking something from a store is insignificant compared to an entire company stealing the rights and freedoms of an entire country just because it's smaller. It's empirical and tyrannical, and wrong.

It's to benefit those who are taken advantage of by destroying those who take advantage of them. No companies to create sweatshops = no sweatshops. Simple as that. Making the company lose money by keeping open a particular location via shoplifting = company solves problem by shutting down location. Enough of these events will cause a significant problem for the main branch.

Yes, and the company will be forced to make major layoffs, creating more unemployment. Same with any "sweatshop" workers. They'll have to find another sweatshop, like maybe working for drug exporters so that the newly created unemployed retailers in the US can get their crack and smack fixes! Way to go... creating theft, unemployment and drug use!

Or did you actually think you were helping anyone by advocating theft?

To deal with the Nike case specifically, I don't think that depriving the CEOs of their profits is that much of an evil thing to do. Why? Because they are obviously paid ridiculously large sums of money which are disproportionate to the amount of work they do.


---

CEOs should be paid, with all the big decisions they have to make. It's a freaking big job. Nearly everything you do sends shockwaves through the company and sometimes the country. You are the dartboard for critics of the company. when something goes wrong, it's your hide the press/people seek and you're the one who has to calm everyone down in times of crisis and keep the company moving in a positive direction. It requires quick thinking, creativity, business sense (and a business education, which a person could spend years working at and upwards of 50 thousand dollars procuring, is helpful), savvy, and the ability to shape both your personality and your message to the liking of your audience (bit of politics in it).

As for how much work they do:

if I had to choose between spending my day making socks or having to scramble all over the country to meet with factory heads, VPs, etc... write memo after memo, come up with operational ideas, marketing ideas, finance ideas (or review such ideas)... hardly ever be at home with my family...

please, let me make socks. If I were a CEO, cripes, I'd go home (or to the hotel) with a stress headache every night from all the mental gymnastics I'd have done during the day. Then that night maybe i'd have to go kiss the asses of some big potential investors. Granted, there'd be caviar and champagne, but i'd rather be home watching the game, eating a TV dinner. Instead of the game and a TV dinner I'd have a bleeding ulcer and a migraine. GREAT! What a glamorous life!

They might make a ton of money, but they're the heads of the companies. Nobody would want that job for less than several hundred thousand dollars per year... and it's not like just anyone is smart/educated/experienced enough to be a CEO. So cut the CEO some slack: it's a shitty job, ya got a freaking target on your chest, and people only remember your mistakes.

I've seen you claim to "fully understand" socialism, but I realise that is now bullshit. I'm not a Marxist, but "the people owning the means of production" is obviously not the same as "a person owning the means of production." Awww, Jeez! :rolleyes:
Yes, and more than one person owning more than one company constitutes the people. As long as the nation we're talking about has more than one person in it [and last time I checked, most do], the plurality is totally justified.

Is "I am an orthodox [insert ideology]" something to be proud of? Think for yourself!
The reason I'm an orthodox Objectivist is because a good portion of Rand's ideas occured to me at a very young age. The first such incident occured when I was seven years old reading Dinotopia, where an inscription on a wall somewhere contained the edict "Others first, Self last." My mind instantly conjured this image of an enormous watering hole with a large line of pseudosentient dinosaurs lined up in front of it. Each dinosaur, adhering to the edict, moved aside when his turn came and retreated to the rear of the line. Eventually, they all died of dehydration.

I did think for myself, thankyouverymuch. Rand didn't really change my mind about anything. Great philosophers don't tell you how to think, they tell you what you already know.

It's to benefit those who are taken advantage of by destroying those who take advantage of them.

Say Smith has a farm and Jones has nothing. Jones comes to Smith pleading desperately for food, and Smith promises Jones just enough food to keep Jones alive in trade for Jones working sixteen hours a day to run the entire farm, which produces enough food for ten people to eat healthily.

Smith is taking advantage of Jones, definitely. But what happens if Smith and the farm are destroyed in a tornado? Jones has no access to food and starves to death.

Replacing capitalist exploitation with nothing is foolish.

Yes, and the company will be forced to make major layoffs, creating more unemployment. Same with any "sweatshop" workers. They'll have to find another sweatshop, like maybe working for drug exporters so that the newly created unemployed retailers in the US can get their crack and smack fixes! Way to go... creating theft, unemployment and drug use!

Or did you actually think you were helping anyone by advocating theft?

Unemployment bedamned. I could enslave half the world and employ the other half, while making prices so high the workers can't even afford any of the merchandise, and I would be a bad person. They are bad people, doing bad things. End of story. The backlash and aftermath is to be dealt with afterward. One step at a time. With all the companies being gone, -everything- would have to be redone. All of society. Local businesses would benefit greatly, each sprouting up - none of which use slavery to make their goods - They'd spread out and grow, increasing employment steadily. Those empty lots in the malls that were once JCPenny and Hechts now could be used for any number of positive things to the community.

The enslaved don't like being -forced- to work. They don't like being 9 and making Reeboks for people in another country who haven't even heard of the place they live in. They don't like working 16+ hour workdays on a constant basis. Don't you think they'd like to sit at home and "watch the game", too? They don't get that benefit. I doubt they would even have a TV, or a sports team for their country. Doing nothing, scrounging for minimal amounts of food and clothing to bring home, would much rather be preferred than slavery. Being able to go out whenever you wanted to and breathe the air.

Those poor CEO's, with their 2million+ paychecks and still stealing from the company, traveling around and staying in the nicest suites eating whatever they want, being able to afford whatever they want, having the ability to retire at any given time and living comfortably for the rest of their life and still leaving off a significant amount for those they leave behind afterward. -You- may not know how to deal with the pressures of being a CEO, but they do, and the rewards far, far, far outweigh the fallbacks (if you can even call them that). I'm sure, given the chance, anyone would rather have that job than what they have now. People make themselves look like fools on national TV for a small fraction of a percentage of what these bastards make in a day - I think if there was a reality show called "Be A Rich Bastard That Makes Major Decisions In A Company", there would be NO shortage of willing participants. You think, for 2mill+ a year, you couldn't get a grip and make a few snap decisions while chomping on cavier and drinking the best wine the Four Seasons has to offer?

There are those that work harder and make a significantly harsher ratio of work to pay. Slaves included.

Say Smith has a farm and Jones has nothing. Jones comes to Smith pleading desperately for food, and Smith promises Jones just enough food to keep Jones alive in trade for Jones working sixteen hours a day to run the entire farm, which produces enough food for ten people to eat healthily.

Smith is taking advantage of Jones, definitely. But what happens if Smith and the farm are destroyed in a tornado? Jones has no access to food and starves to death.

Replacing capitalist exploitation with nothing is foolish.

Jones shouldn't have to rely on Smith. Jones is fully capable of growing his own food, especially since in this metaphor, Jones is an entire friggin' country. No shortage of land. He wouldn't be as prosperous, but he would no doubt be much much happier while not under the thumb of an oppressive bastard like Smith.

Say Smith has a farm and Jones has nothing. Jones comes to Smith pleading desperately for food, and Smith promises Jones just enough food to keep Jones alive in trade for Jones working sixteen hours a day to run the entire farm, which produces enough food for ten people to eat healthily.

Smith is taking advantage of Jones, definitely. But what happens if Smith and the farm are destroyed in a tornado? Jones has no access to food and starves to death.

Replacing capitalist exploitation with nothing is foolish.
But wait, isn't "just enough food to keep Jones alive" an amount that precisely corresponds to Jones' need? Are you attempting to suggest that he should be given more than he needs? Oh, the excess!

Last I checked, giving people more than they needed wasn't a Socialistic ideal. Besides, if Jones stays with the job at all, I think it's safe to say he's deemed this arrangement superior to the alternative [death]. If the farm's only large enough to feed ten people healthily, then there are probably plenty other farms in the area. If he's getting shafted so badly, he should go to one of Smith's competitors--since said competitors would actually exist in a capitalist society.

Jones shouldn't have to rely on Smith. Jones is fully capable of growing his own food, especially since in this metaphor, Jones is an entire friggin' country. No shortage of land. He wouldn't be as prosperous, but he would no doubt be much much happier while not under the thumb of an oppressive bastard like Smith.

Yes, many apologists for capitalism make the same argument. What both you and they miss is that if Jones had alternatives, he would not be working for Smith. All the land is owned by someone. Jones has no money, he cannot afford to buy any land, and he has no tools to work the land, and no money to buy them.

His choice is clear: starvation or harsh exploitation.

Jones, quite sensibly, chooses harsh exploitation.

Yes, Jones shouldn't have to rely on Smith, hence my support for socialism. But what should and should not be is irrelevant to the reality of the situation, which is that he must, if he wishes to live.

But wait, isn't "just enough food to keep Jones alive" an amount that precisely corresponds to Jones' need? Are you attempting to suggest that he should be given more than he needs? Oh, the excess!

Last I checked, giving people more than they needed wasn't a Socialistic ideal.

A ridiculous strawman.

Besides, if Jones stays with the job at all, I think it's safe to say he's deemed this arrangement superior to the alternative [death].

Indeed. That was the point I was making.

If the farm's only large enough to feed ten people healthily, then there are probably plenty other farms in the area. If he's getting shafted so badly, he should go to one of Smith's competitors.

Who have their own Joneses, and would rather provide for one worker than for two. And who are just as content to viciously exploit a worker as Smith is.

Yes, many apologists for capitalism make the same argument. What both you and they miss is that if Jones had alternatives, he would not be working for Smith. All the land is owned by someone. Jones has no money, he cannot afford to buy any land, and he has no tools to work the land, and no money to buy them.

His choice is clear: starvation or harsh exploitation.

Jones, quite sensibly, chooses harsh exploitation.

Yes, Jones shouldn't have to rely on Smith, hence my support for socialism. But what should and should not be is irrelevant to the reality of the situation, which is that he must, if he wishes to live.

I suppose the destruction of Smith would have to correspond to my nonexistant revolution unto the United States via election. If I came into power with a large following, Jones would be saved.

I suppose the destruction of Smith would have to correspond to my nonexistant revolution unto the United States via election. If I came into power with a large following, Jones would be saved.

Fair enough.

But then, you should be against such shoplifting of Nike until you do come to power, and at that point the justification for the shoplifting will be moot anyway, since I assume you would do something considerably more just to counteract Nike's exploitation of its workers.

A ridiculous strawman.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. If that's a Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) [read the link since you obviously have no clue what a Straw Man is], then I'm black.

If it's so easy to identify as a "straw man" [a proposition that amuses me to no end the more I think about it], then it should be equally easy to tell me why. The fact that you have chosen not to speaks volumes as to your ignorance [nevermind that you're advocating socialism].
...Who have their own Joneses, and would rather provide for one worker than for two. And who are just as content to viciously exploit a worker as Smith is.
Right, the old "because they're making money, they're exploiting people" argument. And you accuse me of fallacious arguments. Save it for the next Party meeting; but while you're talking to me I'd prefer it if you would stick to arguments that might actually have some basis in reality. I've worked for a number of companies in my life, and they didn't just treat me like shit because they could. To hear you say it, every company in this country should be paying exactly minimum wage, since they're so hell-bent on "viciously exploiting" their workers to the greatest extent possible.

Fair enough.

But then, you should be against such shoplifting of Nike until you do come to power, and at that point the justification for the shoplifting will be moot anyway, since I assume you would do something considerably more just to counteract Nike's exploitation of its workers.

I wouldn't be a politician. They're nothing but puppets, and have no power of themselves. I don't know what I'd call it, but I'd be in office and I'd have leveredge(sp?). I'm not stupid, though, I know anyone with power can have that power turned against them, especially when they try to outright defy someone with as much power and even more money and influence. Hence, the underground revolution beforehand and during.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. If that's a Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) [read the link since you obviously have no clue what a Straw Man is], then I'm black.

If it's so easy to identify as a "straw man" [a proposition that amuses me to no end the more I think about it], then it should be equally easy to tell me why. The fact that you have chosen not to speaks volumes as to your ignorance [nevermind that you're advocating socialism].

Right, the old "because they're making money, they're exploiting people" argument. And you accuse me of fallacious arguments. Save it for the next Party meeting; but while you're talking to me I'd prefer it if you would stick to arguments that might actually have some basis in reality. I've worked for a number of companies in my life, and they didn't just treat me like shit because they could. To hear you say it, every company in this country should be paying exactly minimum wage, since they're so hell-bent on "viciously exploiting" their workers to the greatest extent possible.


Uh, you seem to be a bit mislead. They're not exploiting because they're "making money", but because they're making money off of enslaving - yes, slavery, not employment. Slaves in other countries, making products for America for about 2000-5000% profit margine. If that's not exploiting people, then that word has absolutely no meaning.

Oh, and Soheran? For your benefit, my train of logic is as follows:

Socialism advocates dispensing resources to people in accordance with their need.
An excess of resources in the possession of an individual is therefore immoral.
Jones needs enough food to survive.
Jones begs Smith for food.
Smith gives Jones enough food to survive.
Therefore, Jones' need has been met.
Smith should give Jones more food. [which contradicts premise #1].

Good luck trying to prove that's a straw man. I'll be very interested to see how you attempt to evade this.

Look, the point that was trying to be made was that stealing a pair of Nike shoes from a store doesn't affect Nike negatively AT ALL. It might cause the store to go out of business, which leads to dozens of people, of whom probably close to 1/4 depend on that job as their sole income or as their main income, becoming unemployed, which hurts the entire country via the economy, and ultimately the entire world. And another store will just pop up, with better security features. Ultimately, the only people that suffer directly from your stealing are the people employed by the store you stole from, but it indirectly affects pretty much everyone but the company in question.

Do you honestly think that stealing a $500 pair of Nike sneakers costs Nike $500? It costs Nike nothing, and it actually INCREASES their profits. The store buys the shoes from Nike for probably somewhere around $150, they mark the shoes up so they make a good profit off the shoes, but once the shoes are IN THE STORE, it doesn't affect the shoe company at all except to make the store buy more shoes and -give the shoe company more money-. Think about that, then tell me it's still okay.

Yes, some of the principles of this system are wrong, but there are some principles wrong with ANY system, and there are MORE wrong with the Robin Hood system than with the system currently in place, or the current system would not exist.

Look, the point that was trying to be made was that stealing a pair of Nike shoes from a store doesn't affect Nike negatively AT ALL. It might cause the store to go out of business, which leads to dozens of people, of whom probably close to 1/4 depend on that job as their sole income or as their main income, becoming unemployed, which hurts the entire country via the economy, and ultimately the entire world. And another store will just pop up, with better security features. Ultimately, the only people that suffer directly from your stealing are the people employed by the store you stole from, but it indirectly affects pretty much everyone but the company in question.

Do you honestly think that stealing a $500 pair of Nike sneakers costs Nike $500? It costs Nike nothing, and it actually INCREASES their profits. The store buys the shoes from Nike for probably somewhere around $150, they mark the shoes up so they make a good profit off the shoes, but once the shoes are IN THE STORE, it doesn't affect the shoe company at all except to make the store buy more shoes and -give the shoe company more money-. Think about that, then tell me it's still okay.

Yes, some of the principles of this system are wrong, but there are some principles wrong with ANY system, and there are MORE wrong with the Robin Hood system than with the system currently in place, or the current system would not exist.

The Robin Hood system doesn't work for very long because it ends once Robin Hood dies. The problem being nobody is willing to carry on after him, and if they do, they do it horribly, or become corrupt. It's a temporary solution. A shakedown of the world. A re-do. A restart button on society. We screwed up to the point where this seems like one of the few options left. Once the Robin Hood system is gone, the Greedy Bastard system can be in place and rest there comfortably, with the insulted masses unwilling to stand up to them in the face of uncertainty.

Uh, you seem to be a bit mislead. They're not exploiting because they're "making money", but because they're making money off of enslaving - yes, slavery, not employment. Slaves in other countries, making products for America for about 2000-5000% profit margine. If that's not exploiting people, then that word has absolutely no meaning.
Well, it's sort of easy to mislead people with ridiculously vague hypotheses like those presented above. For all I know, we're talking about Dark Ages Europe, since that was probably the only time a farm could only feed ten people anyway. No stipulation is given as to Smith's income making the presence of monetary resources something of an x factor. If I want to be as ridiculous as Soheran has been, I get to say that Smith is [i]forced to do what he's doing on account of a ridiculously tight overhead. After all, that is one small farm.

I'm not attempting to justify slavery; I'm just as opposed to it as either of you. Capitalism [as socialists love to forget] is every bit as much about paying people for their work as it is expecting them to pay for what they take. Anything less than this is every bit a distortion of capitalism as Communists claim the USSR was a distortion of Communism.

Oh, and Soheran? For your benefit, my train of logic is as follows:

Socialism advocates dispensing resources to people in accordance with their need.
An excess of resources in the possession of an individual is therefore immoral.
Jones needs enough food to survive.
Jones begs Smith for food.
Smith gives Jones enough food to survive.
Therefore, Jones' need has been met.
Smith should give Jones more food. [which contradicts premise #1].

Good luck trying to prove that's a straw man. I'll be very interested to see how you attempt to evade this.

Not being Socialist, I continue the line of logic with:

Smith gives Jones enough food to survive.
Therefore, Jones' is just barely surviving.
Smith should stop being a greedy bastard and give Jones enough food to where he doesn't look like a walking skeleton.
Jones and Smith develop a friendship.
Smith enjoys having him as a friend and worker, and raises his salary, while making more money, and expands his field.
Smith hires more workers, treating them like equals and makes more friends.
Everyone is happy.

Well, it's sort of easy to mislead people with ridiculously vague hypotheses like those presented above. For all I know, we're talking about Dark Ages Europe, since that was probably the only time a farm could only feed ten people anyway. No stipulation is given as to Smith's income making the presence of monetary resources something of an x factor. If I want to be as ridiculous as Soheran has been, I get to say that Smith is [i]forced to do what he's doing on account of a ridiculously tight overhead. After all, that is one small farm.

I'm not attempting to justify slavery; I'm just as opposed to it as either of you. Capitalism [as socialists love to forget] is every bit as much about paying people for their work as it is expecting them to pay for what they take. Anything less than this is every bit a distortion of capitalism as Communists claim the USSR was a distortion of Communism.

Then according to you, companies that outsource and enslave are not capitalist, as they barely pay their workers and give them horrid working environments with slavedriving hours. That's empirical, not capitalist.

Not being Socialist, I continue the line of logic with:

Smith gives Jones enough food to survive.
Therefore, Jones' is just barely surviving.
Smith should stop being a greedy bastard and give Jones enough food to where he doesn't look like a walking skeleton.
Jones and Smith develop a friendship.
Smith enjoys having him as a friend and worker, and raises his salary, while making more money, and expands his field.
Smith hires more workers, treating them like equals and makes more friends.
Everyone is happy.
Thank you for that; you just walked right into my trap without even knowing it. God, I love this job.

Socialists frequently contend that people should [as I have already said] not possess more than they need--in fact nearly all of their attacks on captialism are contingent on this premise [hence the constant comparisons to Robin Hood, whom I would most happily slaughter if I had the chance]. Strictly speaking, one only needs enough food to resemble a walking skeleton in order to survive--just look at any Ethiopian lucky enough to live past age 12. Therefore, any distribution of food beyond this point is giving that person more resources than they need to survive, which is a Capitalist morality rather than a Socialist one. See what I'm getting at here? Socialists can't even attack Capitalist morality without actually using it.

Thank you for that; you just walked right into my trap without even knowing it. God, I love this job.

Socialists frequently contend that people should [as I have already said] not possess more than they need--in fact nearly all of their attacks on captialism are contingent on this premise [hence the constant comparisons to Robin Hood, whom I would most happily slaughter if I had the chance]. Strictly speaking, one only needs enough food to resemble a walking skeleton in order to survive--just look at any Ethiopian lucky enough to live past age 12. Therefore, any distribution of food beyond this point is giving that person more resources than they need to survive, which is a Capitalist morality rather than a Socialist one. See what I'm getting at here? Socialists can't even attack Capitalist morality without actually using it.

I'm confused. Do you think me to have suggested myself as a devout Socialist? I'm loyal to no system other than that which I have found to be just, and I've yet to do so, but moreso with Capitalism than anything else. I don't see your point.

Then according to you, companies that outsource and enslave are not capitalist, as they barely pay their workers and give them horrid working environments with slavedriving hours. That's empirical, not capitalist.
If a company modernizes a facility and gives it all sorts of cool new production technology, the government of $THIRD_WORLD_NATION might [gasp!] decide to nationalize it, forever removing said factory from the company that built and staffed it in the first place. Long story short, socialist ideals drive the jobs out of the country to begin with [labor restrictions] and then they force the company to erect substandard facilities overseas [since they don't want to invest in a factory that will be seized form them]. Having thousands of Korean children make sneakers by hand is not the ideal solution; I'm sure they'd much rather ship in the machinery needed to make them more quickly and effectively.

Also, the wage comparison is somewhat skewed in a lot of places, since they do still pay out their wages in USD, I beleive. Something like, say, fifty cents an hour USD is worth a lot more than most domestic currencies in these third world nations [gee, I wonder why].

If a company modernizes a facility and gives it all sorts of cool new production technology, the government of $THIRD_WORLD_NATION might [gasp!] decide to nationalize it, forever removing said factory from the company that built and staffed it in the first place. Long story short, socialist ideals drive the jobs out of the country to begin with [labor restrictions] and then they force the company to erect substandard facilities overseas [since they don't want to invest in a factory that will be seized form them]. Having thousands of Korean children make sneakers by hand is not the ideal solution; I'm sure they'd much rather ship in the machinery needed to make them more quickly and effectively.

Also, the wage comparison is somewhat skewed in a lot of places, since they do still pay out their wages in USD, I beleive. Something like, say, fifty cents an hour USD is worth a lot more than most domestic currencies in these third world nations [gee, I wonder why].


Eh, try something closer to 16c a day.

You keep referring to Socialism for some reason...

I'm confused. Do you think me to have suggested myself as a devout Socialist?
No, since I have eyes and can understand the English language; you said in that post yourself that you're not a socialist. I provided the above post primarily for the sake of those who are unfortunate enough to actually beleive that garbage. In fairness, I probably should have specified, but this thread is moving so fast my head is spinning.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. If that's a Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) [read the link since you obviously have no clue what a Straw Man is], then I'm black.

If it's so easy to identify as a "straw man" [a proposition that amuses me to no end the more I think about it], then it should be equally easy to tell me why. The fact that you have chosen not to speaks volumes as to your ignorance [nevermind that you're advocating socialism].

Socialism does not advocate solely providing for the needs of people. You saying that it does is a misrepresentation, as anyone truly knowledgeable of the theory behind it is quite aware.

Karl Marx, for an obvious example, knew quite well that the capitalist class tended to pay workers enough for them to just barely survive, and interpreted the mechanisms of the capitalist economy while taking into account this truth.

It is true that socialists tend to advocate providing for the needs of human beings before providing luxuries to the exploiting class, but that has little to do with the position you assign to them.

Note that "just enough food to keep Jones alive" is not "just enough food for Jones to be reasonably healthy," or "just enough food that Jones will not die far more quickly than he should." In some sectors of the economy labor tends to be disposable, hence the paying of less than a living wage. Nevertheless no company will pay its workers less than the bare minimum necessary for them to survive in the immediate future, unless a welfare program is there to ensure such survival without cutting into the company's profits.

Right, the old "because they're making money, they're exploiting people" argument. And you accuse me of fallacious arguments. Save it for the next Party meeting; but while you're talking to me I'd prefer it if you would stick to arguments that might actually have some basis in reality. I've worked for a number of companies in my life, and they didn't just treat me like shit because they could. To hear you say it, every company in this country should be paying exactly minimum wage, since they're so hell-bent on "viciously exploiting" their workers to the greatest extent possible.

Not every company. I would not say that the example I have sketched is necessarily indicative of the entire economy; it is certainly not so in regard to skilled labor, for instance. In First World countries with developed, mixed economies it is almost never so extreme. But in the example referenced, Third World sweatshop conditions, similar circumstances do tend to exist.

The Robin Hood system doesn't work for very long because it ends once Robin Hood dies. The problem being nobody is willing to carry on after him, and if they do, they do it horribly, or become corrupt. It's a temporary solution. A shakedown of the world. A re-do. A restart button on society. We screwed up to the point where this seems like one of the few options left. Once the Robin Hood system is gone, the Greedy Bastard system can be in place and rest there comfortably, with the insulted masses unwilling to stand up to them in the face of uncertainty.
You seem to have completely ignored my point. The Robin Hood system does NOTHING in this case to begin with except make the rich even richer and the poor poorer. You steal a pair of Nike shoes from a store every week, say. The store eventually has to fire a good worker, who probably depends on that job to pay their rent, either because they think the worker is stealing the shoes or because they can't afford to have so many people employed because they're losing quite a bit of money on each pair of shoes. Meanwhile, the store has to buy more shoes from Nike, meaning that not only does Nike not suffer, but the people being oppressed in those sweat-shops just get worked harder to supply the extra shoes.

You're really just working FOR Nike by stealing their shoes. Is that really the aim you're taking?

Eh, try something closer to 16c a day.

You keep referring to Socialism for some reason...
Try answering the point next time. I didn't research the actual wage because I don't care. I picked a number at random; I thought my phrasing in that particular passage would have made that obvious.

whichever way you want to look at it, taking something which does not belong to you is wrong, because it belongs to someone, whether that be a person or a multinational corporation. Its still theirs and not yours.

Unemployment bedamned. I could enslave half the world and employ the other half, while making prices so high the workers can't even afford any of the merchandise, and I would be a bad person. They are bad people, doing bad things. End of story. The backlash and aftermath is to be dealt with afterward. One step at a time. With all the companies being gone, -everything- would have to be redone. All of society.

And your vague plans about fixing the problems of the world (redoing society! in your own image) after destroying everything that is built (ehh they were bad people doing bad things!) only confirm for me that people like you are the ones we should NOT ever let be in charge.

Maybe it's just me, but destroying all business in the world based on the vague premise of replacing everything with something better seems to qualify as "bad things."

Try answering the point next time. I didn't research the actual wage because I don't care. I picked a number at random; I thought my phrasing in that particular passage would have made that obvious.

Just pointing out it's horribly insignificant. I might've even overestimated by a great deal.

Nike thing again: How is shutting down their stores working -for- them?

Rethinking the plan, simply stealing their things wouldn't have a great effect until done on a widespread countrywide great span like I'd imagine there would be. Followers could do various things within the company if hired.

Rethinking another part of the plan that'd already been rethought: Half would be donated to charity after being scratched out. The other half would be given away, unvandalized, for free. This would lower the market value of the items after a while, considering -everyone- would have them, therefore the company itself would make no money off of it, because nobody would buy them, because they wouldn't have to, because they'd be getting them for free.

Lots of because's.

If I steal a pair of Nikes, or a Hilfiger shirt, or whatever, It's a political statement more than me going "hell, I want this". Take how much they pay sweatshop slaves, subtract that from how much they make by charging insane amounts for their brand name, and take into account how insanely rich the corporate bastards of the company are.

They deserve a good kick to their pockets; in fact, I encourage a mass spree of countrywide shoplifting from these bastards.


Fine, just don't complain when a 250 pound security guard cuffs you to a water pipe an breaks out a phone book when you start spouting your political statement bullshit.

More to the point, you're just justifying being a greedly little schmuck. The store doesn't pay a sweatshop worker, the company that makes the product originally does. The store has already paid them, Nike already has their profit. All you do is hurt a buisness owner, likely a local franchise jockey.

I know. They'd be in trouble, financially. Sacrifices, I suppose. To finally topple the actual enemy, huge sacrifices would have to be made, whether moral or legal or financial.

Umm, what if those people don't want to make that sacrifice? Or does that mean that they're just part of the enemy because they aren't willing to force their children to endure privation in the name of your moral code? I've got news for ya Che, what you're proposing is every bit as coercive as what you wanna fight.

I admit, I'm very Robinhoodian (there I go inventing words again) in my ideals and goals, but all I can do is insist you believe me when I say I believe it's for the greater good. All the biggest movements and changes in history have happened because of one person pushing his suggestions to the point of completion, regardless of what others have said about it. Some results have been good, some have been bad. Good: Luther going around whining about the church being corrupt until people paid attention and then making his own church. Bad: War. Almost all wars have been done in this fashion, especially when focused on the medieval times of kings

Take a good look at Luther. Luther wasn't out to start a new church, he was out to reform the RCC. It was the German princes that realized starting a new church would give them the power in Germany that the RCC had all over Europe. No one was saved, no one was more free, there was no glorious moment of victory for the everyman, just a new and consolidated king. See, historically, movements where one man pushed his ideals have always ended in tyranny, in less freedom. It is movements in which many people rise that increase freedom (first American revolution, various civil rights movements, Ghandi's revolution).

I suppose the destruction of Smith would have to correspond to my nonexistant revolution unto the United States via election. If I came into power with a large following, Jones would be saved.

Well, theres always congress and the courts to limit your power, especially the wholseale destruction of Smith. Beyond that, there exists and armed populace, and a military that is unlikely to be too open to following insurrectionist orders...

And your vague plans about fixing the problems of the world (redoing society! in your own image) after destroying everything that is built (ehh they were bad people doing bad things!) only confirm for me that people like you are the ones we should NOT ever let be in charge.

Maybe it's just me, but destroying all business in the world based on the vague premise of replacing everything with something better seems to qualify as "bad things."

Again, it's all trust. You don't trust my intentions, and wouldn't trust me while in power. Understandable. Though I expect that would change if I could feed and clothe the poor in the enslaved third-world countries with no benefit to myself, which I would plan to do. I don't seek to destroy all BUSINESS in the WORLD. Just all jackass companies that exploit the weak for their own personal gain. There's nothing wrong with that.

I understand the cautiousness and even the extent of paranoia that a huge change would like this would bring, but it's that same paranoia that's kept them in power for so long. Fear of change.

Nike thing again: How is shutting down their stores working -for- them?
I just explained that. Nike loses no money from you stealing their shoes from a store. The store buys more shoes from Nike and Nike GAINS money from your having stolen a pair of their shoes. Therefore you are helping Nike by stealing a pair of their shoes. Unless 4 or 5 people go to EVERY store in the country and steal a pair of Nike shoes each at the same time, and even then it's unlikely, Nike won't be affected.

Oh, and Soheran? For your benefit, my train of logic is as follows:

Socialism advocates dispensing resources to people in accordance with their need.
An excess of resources in the possession of an individual is therefore immoral.
Jones needs enough food to survive.
Jones begs Smith for food.
Smith gives Jones enough food to survive.
Therefore, Jones' need has been met.
Smith should give Jones more food. [which contradicts premise #1].

Good luck trying to prove that's a straw man. I'll be very interested to see how you attempt to evade this.

Statement 1 is loosely accurate, in that socialism advocates that the economy prioritize production for human needs. Statement 2 does not follow from Statement 1. Providing for everyone's needs does not mean that no one has luxuries. All it means is that no one has luxuries at the expense of someone else being denied what they need, which is something entirely different. There is a difference between a capitalist living in opulence at the expense of other people's needs and a worker being paid enough to meet more than his needs at the expense of a capitalist's profits.

Fine, just don't complain when a 250 pound security guard cuffs you to a water pipe an breaks out a phone book when you start spouting your politcal statement bullshit.

More to the point, you're just justifying being a greedly little schmuck. The store doesn't pay a sweatshop worker, the company that makes the product originally does. The store has already paid them, Nike already has their profit. All you do is hurt a buisness owner, likely a local franchise jockey.



Umm, what if those people don't want to make that sacrifice? Or does that mean that they're just part of the enemy because they aren't willing to force their children to endure privation in the name of your moral code? I've got news for ya Che, what you're proposing is every bit as coercive as what you wanna fight.



Take a good look at Luther. Luther wasn't out to start a new church, he was out to reform the RCC. It was the German princes that realized starting a new church would give them the power in Germany that the RCC had all over Europe. No one was saved, no one was more free, there was no glorious moment of victory for the everyman, just a new and consolidated king. See, historically, movements where one man pushed his ideals have always ended in tyranny, in less freedom. It is movements in which many people rise that increase freedom (first American revolution, various civil rights movements, Ghandi's revolution).



Well, theres always congress and the courts to limit your power, especially the wholseale destruction of Smith. Beyond that, there exists and armed populace, and a military that is unlikely to be too open to following insurrectionist orders...


You act as if I'd have an army, and would give orders and demands. I wouldn't do such a thing, that'd be just as bad as Smith. I'd ask. I'd help. I'd gain trust and I gain friends by my actions. Those friends would help me make the world a better place than it is now. Congress can't pass legislation against my friends, when they're simply citizens that agree with my goals. The armed populace would be one of the first of my long list of friends. If the military itself were to outright try to stop us from coming into power by using force, -then- it's possible a civil war could break out.

Everything I seek to do would benefit the country, and then the world. Unifying in friendship and gaining momentum with each act of kindness done around the world. Greed simply has no place in a world like that.

Luther had the right idea, and that's my point. Luther himself would've done the right thing. It's when other people subdue him and take over that things go awry.

I just explained that. Nike loses no money from you stealing their shoes from a store. The store buys more shoes from Nike and Nike GAINS money from your having stolen a pair of their shoes. Therefore you are helping Nike by stealing a pair of their shoes. Unless 4 or 5 people go to EVERY store in the country and steal a pair of Nike shoes each at the same time, and even then it's unlikely, Nike won't be affected.

Actually, that was something like what I had in mind. Literal, MASS shoplifting. Even employees, my followers and my friends, helping by shaking the corporate system from the ground, up.

Szanth, you do realize that this is how almost every conqueror in HISTORY started out, and they ALL failed, right? "I'm going to move in, change things until I say they're better, and do nothing to question why things were the way they were before I got there."

You have the right to shoplift, if the company has the right to shoot you dead in their store.

Seriously, we have people stealing from target left and right. Don't make it harder on us. It just makes prices for all of us go up, because the corporations aren't willing to take the hit to the pocket book.

You act as if I'd have an army, and would give orders and demands. I wouldn't do such a thing, that'd be just as bad as Smith. I'd ask. I'd help. I'd gain trust and I gain friends by my actions. Those friends would help me make the world a better place than it is now. Congress can't pass legislation against my friends, when they're simply citizens that agree with my goals. The armed populace would be one of the first of my long list of friends. If the military itself were to outright try to stop us from coming into power by using force, -then- it's possible a civil war could break out.

Everything I seek to do would benefit the country, and then the world. Unifying in friendship and gaining momentum with each act of kindness done around the world. Greed simply has no place in a world like that.

Luther had the right idea, and that's my point. Luther himself would've done the right thing. It's when other people subdue him and take over that things go awry.


Umm...I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. I mean, the world you propose simply doesn;t exist. There are bad people out there who do bad things, greedy people who can be damn charismatic. How do you propose to root them out, how do you propose to keep them from eating you alive? How on earth can you keep them from taking control of your circle of friends? More to the point, how do you take power if you are in a distinct minority. Others have tried what you are suggesting, hell, we had a whole generation that made the attempt.

On your point about an armed populace, do you know many gun owners? Not a whole lot of socialists. Mostly you end up with traditional conservatives, libertarians, and a handful of isolationists. Especially in urban areas, gun owners tend to be individuals who do not trust others implicityly, they own guns because they feel they might need to defend themselves.

Umm...I'm not quite sure how to respond to that. I mean, the world you propose simply doesn;t exist. There are bad people out there who do bad things, greedy people who can be damn charismatic. How do you propose to root them out, how do you propose to keep them from eating you alive? How on earth can you keep them from taking control of your circle of friends? More to the point, how do you take power if you are in a distinct minority. Others have tried what you are suggesting, hell, we had a whole generation that made the attempt.

On your point about an armed populace, do you know many gun owners? Not a whole lot of socialists. Mostly you end up with traditional conservatives, libertarians, and a handful of isolationists. Especially in urban areas, gun owners tend to be individuals who do not trust others implicityly, they own guns because they feel they might need to defend themselves.

I know. I believe I can make friends with anyone through honesty and kindness, regardless of whether or not they have a gun. And again, I'm not socialist. =P

I'm not a conquerer. I'm not a king. They ruled with power and fear. That's how they came to power, that's how they stayed in power, and that's why they fell. I wouldn't rule over anything, but simply try and reteach people how to love eachother. Apparently they forgot a while ago. They just need to be reminded. Whether or not I'd be seen as a leader is irrelevant; leaders tend to make orders, whereas I'd make suggestions and talk. I tend to treat people like people, and that tends to work very well in having them see from your perspective, and it helps quite a bit if it makes sense to do so.

I couldn't say how long this would last, but even a day of global peace and kindness would be enough to review upon for centuries and would be worth all the effort, even if in the end I got shot or something.

Again, it's all trust. You don't trust my intentions, and wouldn't trust me while in power. Understandable. Though I expect that would change if I could feed and clothe the poor in the enslaved third-world countries with no benefit to myself, which I would plan to do.

Heh, no benefit to yourself other than magically being in power over third world countries and getting to impose your worldview on the world? How selfless of you!

I don't seek to destroy all BUSINESS in the WORLD. Just all jackass companies that exploit the weak for their own personal gain. There's nothing wrong with that.

Except you almost likely define "jackass companies" to include most or all businesses in the world. I don't happen to agree with that atypically anticapitalist assessment.


I understand the cautiousness and even the extent of paranoia that a huge change would like this would bring, but it's that same paranoia that's kept them in power for so long. Fear of change.

There's nothing about "change" here. Ya know, some people in the USSR promised to change things too by getting rid of the evil, exploitive businesses. Apparently that didn't work and a few tens of millions of people died and suffered as a result. So I don't think it's actually paranoia if I see the same shit crop up, promising the same panacea of "changes," and suspect that it might just lead to the same results.

Heh, no benefit to yourself other than magically being in power over third world countries and getting to impose your worldview on the world? How selfless of you!



Except you almost likely define "jackass companies" to include most or all businesses in the world. I don't happen to agree with that atypically anticapitalist assessment.



There's nothing about "change" here. Ya know, some people in the USSR promised to change things too by getting rid of the evil, exploitive businesses. Apparently that didn't work and a few tens of millions of people died and suffered as a result. So I don't think it's actually paranoia if I see the same shit crop up, promising the same panacea of "changes," and suspect that it might just lead to the same results.

I don't define "jackass companies" as all businesses in the world. When did I say that? I define them as such: those who exploit and outsource to gain incredible amounts of profit from the workers' pain and suffering, without doing anything to sate it or make their situation better.

It's about nothing but change. The world runs on money: That would change. People don't have time for eachother: That would change. You can't smile at someone without the possibility of them getting angry at you: That would change.

Again, I'm not in power of anything. The governments of the world would still be in effect, though they'd have to readjust their workings to make do with the sudden changes from greed, injustice and fear, to love, kindness and trust.

My worldview is one that everyone shares, but cannot express because of the way the world is run right now. It doesn't matter what religion you are, what race you are, what sex you are, you're all people. Everyone has boundaries of respect, love, kindness, and happiness. If you treat a person like a person, he respects you.

Though I realize not everyone is ready to leave the hard shell of protection that paranoia and fear of change can grant, suffocating though it is. I'd be at great risk of assassination in an effort to make the change stop and make things stay the way they are. I wouldn't put up barriers. If I get shot, I get shot, and continue to trust and love as I always have until I can do so no longer. Hopefully this will become apparent to the attackers, who would not be punished, and they would finally be ready to sacrifice fear for trust.


EDIT: Heh, 30 crazy posts and notta one telegram about them. Surprising.

I don't define "jackass companies" as all businesses in the world. When did I say that? I define them as such: those who exploit and outsource to gain incredible amounts of profit from the workers' pain and suffering, without doing anything to sate it or make their situation better.

I know, and the marxists say all business is "exploitation" and trade protectionists say the same thing of "outsourcing" and anti-capitalists just have a huge problem with "profit" and minimum wage advocates demand that corporations become daddy and mummy.

Perhaps its a problem of definition. How do you define which corporations are "bad people doing bad things" and which aren't? Frankly, I don't trust your ability to make such judgements.

It's about nothing but change. The world runs on money: That would change. People don't have time for eachother: That would change. You can't smile at someone without the possibility of them getting angry at you: That would change.

:rolleyes: How would you change the possibility of me getting angry with you for smiling? Particularly when you're also singing kum-ba-ya and talking about your utopian visions of happy dancing in the flowery fields of blessedly non-capitalist planetary paradigms. The only way would for you to magically alter me somehow by removing my free will. No thanks!


My worldview is one that everyone shares,

I don't think so.


Though I realize not everyone is ready to leave the hard shell of protection that paranoia and fear of change can grant, suffocating though it is. I'd be at great risk of assassination in an effort to make the change stop and make things stay the way they are. I wouldn't put up barriers. If I get shot, I get shot, and continue to trust and love as I always have until I can do so no longer. Hopefully this will become apparent to the attackers, who would not be punished, and they would finally be ready to sacrifice fear for trust.


Can I afford another roll-eyes smiley here? Because you're just asking for it. Of course there's always the implicit assumption that anyone who does (somehow!) disagree with your worldview is paranoid and fearful. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, it does.


EDIT: Heh, 30 crazy posts and notta one telegram about them. Surprising.

No one telegrams others cuz of NS General posts. Instead they wait til your NS is on the top 10 of the world, and then they ask you to join their region so you can be powerful.

I know, and the marxists say all business is "exploitation" and trade protectionists say the same thing of "outsourcing" and anti-capitalists just have a huge problem with "profit" and minimum wage advocates demand that corporations become daddy and mummy.

Perhaps its a problem of definition. How do you define which corporations are "bad people doing bad things" and which aren't? Frankly, I don't trust your ability to make such judgements.



:rolleyes: How would you change the possibility of me getting angry with you for smiling? Particularly when you're also singing kum-ba-ya and talking about your utopian visions of happy dancing in the flowery fields of blessedly non-capitalist planetary paradigms. The only way would for you to magically alter me somehow by removing my free will. No thanks!



I don't think so.



Can I afford another roll-eyes smiley here? Because you're just asking for it. Of course there's always the implicit assumption that anyone who does (somehow!) disagree with your worldview is paranoid and fearful. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, it does.



No one telegrams others cuz of NS General posts. Instead they wait til your NS is on the top 10 of the world, and then they ask you to join their region so you can be powerful.


Oh, I've already been invited to two regions within something like five minutes of joining, I'd just assumed some people would've had questions they'd wanna ask in a telegram rather than continue on the forums. *shrugs*


I'm not marxist. #_# You don't see slavery as a bad thing? That scares me.

I wouldn't have to remove free will, and couldn't, and wouldn't want to. Today: Someone smiles at a New Yorker walking down the street, the guy sneers back at him thinking about how shitty his day's been and how this guy's probly trying to rub it in his face. Tomorrow: Someone smiles at a New Yorker walking down the street. The guy stops and smiles back, shaking his hand, introducing himself. He's had the usual stressful day at work and is reassured that everything is, in fact, alright because of the kindness people are showing all around him. They go and have a drink together.

I'm convinced that small things like that fall into place once society as a whole isn't fixated upon greed and money. Do you realize how many people you pass by on a daily basis and shrug them off? So many different people. Many of them probably wanting nothing more than for you to stop and acknowledge them for a second, which would make their day, and even their week. Imagine the connection everyone would share with eachother knowing that we were all there for everyone else. We're all people on the same ride, ignoring eachother as we deal with the same problems; if we'd just notice and talk to others like we wouldn't normally do, things would seem a lot better. Society and humanity need to become closer as one, instead of shutting eachother out and expecting the worst from their nextdoor neighbor.

I don't define "jackass companies" as all businesses in the world. When did I say that? I define them as such: those who exploit and outsource to gain incredible amounts of profit from the workers' pain and suffering, without doing anything to sate it or make their situation better.

It's about nothing but change. The world runs on money: That would change. People don't have time for eachother: That would change. You can't smile at someone without the possibility of them getting angry at you: That would change.

Again, I'm not in power of anything. The governments of the world would still be in effect, though they'd have to readjust their workings to make do with the sudden changes from greed, injustice and fear, to love, kindness and trust.

My worldview is one that everyone shares, but cannot express because of the way the world is run right now. It doesn't matter what religion you are, what race you are, what sex you are, you're all people. Everyone has boundaries of respect, love, kindness, and happiness. If you treat a person like a person, he respects you.

Though I realize not everyone is ready to leave the hard shell of protection that paranoia and fear of change can grant, suffocating though it is. I'd be at great risk of assassination in an effort to make the change stop and make things stay the way they are. I wouldn't put up barriers. If I get shot, I get shot, and continue to trust and love as I always have until I can do so no longer. Hopefully this will become apparent to the attackers, who would not be punished, and they would finally be ready to sacrifice fear for trust.


EDIT: Heh, 30 crazy posts and notta one telegram about them. Surprising.

Why don't you go grow some marijuana, and hand it out for free? Thats the closest you are going to get to your dream.

People are happy with the system. They may not say it, they may not know it, but they are happy enough to live with it. They would defend it with their lives, as even oppressed peoples often do.

Heres the big picture: You are one of thousands, or millions, or people who think they can change anything. In any given year, maybe 5 can, on average.

You aren't going to get anybody to follow you. You aren't going to start a civil war, or even make anybody notice you except on this forum of spouting ideas. If you get shot, you aren't just going to say "oh well". You are going to bleed alot, probably die, and be pissed about it. This isn't a freaking movie, where the good guy gracefully goes into the night. You get shot, and unless you are so pumped full of drugs or adreniline, you are going to feel it, and everything will change. You will regret anything that you did to contribute to it.

I'm sorry, but these idea's of people anger me. While I would love it if people just were altruistic to each other, but in this system, its not going to happen. And you aren't going to be the one who changes this system, so you might as well give up, and do your best to be happy until you die, having accomplished little to nothing.

Oh, and Soheran? For your benefit, my train of logic is as follows:

Socialism advocates dispensing resources to people in accordance with their need.
I would have thought of it as this-you owe society something back for allowing you your wealth. The peices of paper only mean something because of the social structure that says it's so. Without that, the only ones with wealth are the ones with the goats. Since the society supports you by giving value to the pieces of paper and providing a setting where we don't have to spend all of our time herding goats and can instead buy Playstations, it is in that societies best interest to look after the least of its citizens.
An excess of resources in the possession of an individual is therefore immoral.
Only if there is an exclusion.
Jones needs enough food to survive.
Jones begs Smith for food.
Smith gives Jones enough food to survive.
Therefore, Jones' need has been met.
Smith should give Jones more food. [which contradicts premise #1].
Why? The last conclusion is a jump. It only calls for a minimum condition. Why does it call for an excess? Once Jones' needs have been met Smith has met his obligation, Jones now has the means to contribute on his own having a platform from which to stand up on.

Good luck trying to prove that's a straw man. I'll be very interested to see how you attempt to evade this.
I'd like to see the works that support your version as socialism as being advocated or practiced by anyone.

Why don't you go grow some marijuana, and hand it out for free? Thats the closest you are going to get to your dream.


I advocate the 'appleseed' movement. The best method is to fill a birdfeeder with seeds for bud, when the birds crap out the seeds as they fly the fertilized seeds take hold spread out in random locations. Provided enough people do this the weed becomes too wild to control completely.

I understand this as idealistic and would have limited effect, but still...

Why don't you go grow some marijuana, and hand it out for free? Thats the closest you are going to get to your dream.

People are happy with the system. They may not say it, they may not know it, but they are happy enough to live with it. They would defend it with their lives, as even oppressed peoples often do.

Heres the big picture: You are one of thousands, or millions, or people who think they can change anything. In any given year, maybe 5 can, on average.

You aren't going to get anybody to follow you. You aren't going to start a civil war, or even make anybody notice you except on this forum of spouting ideas. If you get shot, you aren't just going to say "oh well". You are going to bleed alot, probably die, and be pissed about it. This isn't a freaking movie, where the good guy gracefully goes into the night. You get shot, and unless you are so pumped full of drugs or adreniline, you are going to feel it, and everything will change. You will regret anything that you did to contribute to it.

I'm sorry, but these idea's of people anger me. While I would love it if people just were altruistic to each other, but in this system, its not going to happen. And you aren't going to be the one who changes this system, so you might as well give up, and do your best to be happy until you die, having accomplished little to nothing.


I know the pieces fit, 'cause I watched them fall away. No fault, none to blame. It doesn't mean I don't desire to point the finger, blame the other, watch the temple topple over. To bring the pieces back together, rediscover communication.

Anything is possible. It's only negativity, for lack of a better word, like yours that continues to cause this world to curve unto itself.

I realize it's a bit immature to definitively promise something like this, but it's certainly what my goal is. If I contribute nothing else in my life, this would suffice.

If I contribute nothing else in my life, this would suffice.

Except you will probably not even contribute that. That would be more than the vast majority of people contribute in their lives.

Its not negativity, at least, not on purpose. Its realism. If you want to sit and day dream about things that won't come to pass, then go ahead. Me and my friends imagined a place called ARLA, or the Armed Republic of Liberated Africa. The plan was to save up enough initial money, a good portion from one of my friends savings(Which will be in the millions of dollars when he is still in his twenties, complicated issue), and to fly to africa. We would hire a few mercenaries, a large number of africans, and train them in a desolate area(the mercenaries training the africans). Once we had a decent number of people, we would invade part of a small african country, one of the small ones on the west coast, or someone like Mozambique. We would pay the africans very little, mostly enough for only food, but allow them to loot every town we came across.

Eventually, we would pick up more africans, who would hopefully find the prospect of looting towns like this to be payment enough. Eventually, we would try to have a small portion of the country under our control(not all of it), and attempt to get a cease-fire from the government of the country. We wouldn't control a huge section of the country, but enough for our purposes.

Our government would be a dictatorship, though eventually a communist state with a dictator(Which I don't believe is completely contradictory, maybe to marx it is). Me and my friends would rule the country, using the elite of our campaign to be our body guards. We would use the rest of the military as police, with every crime being punishable by death.

Our major export would be drugs. We wouldn't sign any international laws that would preclude our production and sale of them. While we would get very bad international press, we would sell to all of africa, and possibly others. After a while of illicit traffic, we would start making money, allowing us to create a better working system, trained guards, better drugs and weapons, and better lives for our people.

Of course, me and my friends would be rulers for life. I would be top dog, they would be right below me(though I would listen to their ideas, as they share the same core idea as me). Our populace would be almost all armed, and trained, to fight for our defense. While many would not, many probably would, especially after things got better after the drug trafficing.

Eventually, we would have our own tiny working military, assuming sales went as planned. We wouldn't mass crap equipment like most of africa, but instead just buy small numbers of good things, like the U.A.E. We would try to buy Leo2's and M1a1's(though we would have to get them from other nations, and only buy in the low double digits), and maybe a squadren of Mirage 2000's or Su-27 variants, etc etc. Our military would really be for self defense, as nations would probably get jealous of how good we were doing.

Is any of this going to happen? No. Its all hypothetically possible, but its just not going to happen, no matter how idealistic you are.

Hey, they're ripping you off, I don't see why you can't do the same back to them. It's capitalistic, and that's too f***ing bad for them. Of course, this is exactly why I support a leftist economy...

Hey, they're ripping you off, I don't see why you can't do the same back to them. It's capitalistic, and that's too f***ing bad for them. Of course, this is exactly why I support a leftist economy...

Hmm, because "ripping someone off" is a consentual act? You buy something from them, you make the choice to accept their price and pay it.

On the other hand, petty theft is not consentual. They don't choose to have you steal their shit.

What you're doing is morally equivalent to saying sex and rape are the same thing.

Hmm, because "ripping someone off" is a consentual act? You buy something from them, you make the choice to accept their price and pay it.

On the other hand, petty theft is not consentual. They don't choose to have you steal their shit.

What you're doing is morally equivalent to saying sex and rape are the same thing.

Then how come they set aside millions to compensate for stolen goods? Surely, if they didn't want you to steal stuff, they wouldn't do that.

Then how come they set aside millions to compensate for stolen goods? Surely, if they didn't want you to steal stuff, they wouldn't do that.
They don't WANT you to, but there'll always be people on the smarter end of dumbass-osity (I know that's not a word) who'll get away with it, when they're doing it just because they have the same skewed view as you and other people in this thread.

Then how come they set aside millions to compensate for stolen goods? Surely, if they didn't want you to steal stuff, they wouldn't do that.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, and maybe because rape crisis centers have funds for treating rape victims, they WANT rapists to commit their crimes?

Is this wrong? Do I have a right in any way to steal from faceless corporations? It's definately true that stealing from an individual is wrong in most cases, but what of stealing from big-name companies who cannot possibly be hurt by this?
In effect, you are stealing from individuals. Very few companies don't pass the lost revenue on to customers, so the rest of us are paying for theft via higher prices. The need for stores to have private security services also increases the price. Beyond that, theft necessitates more police services, which increases taxes.

We don't live in a vacume. Every action we take, whether for good or ill, has impact on the lives of others.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, and maybe because rape crisis centers have funds for treating rape victims, they WANT rapists to commit their crimes?

Well, without rapes, do you think the rape centers would have funding?

I'm just saying that if the companies don't want to be stolen from, they shouldn't be controlling the entire economy and forcing people to buy goods from them at overinflated prices.

I know the pieces fit, 'cause I watched them fall away. No fault, none to blame. It doesn't mean I don't desire to point the finger, blame the other, watch the temple topple over. To bring the pieces back together, rediscover communication.

Anything is possible. It's only negativity, for lack of a better word, like yours that continues to cause this world to curve unto itself.

I realize it's a bit immature to definitively promise something like this, but it's certainly what my goal is. If I contribute nothing else in my life, this would suffice.

Why are you quoting Tool in a discussion about altruism and the inherant good in man? Tool is one of the most misanthropic bands I've heard in a very long time.

Back to the topic, though, do you really believe that people are basically good, that they could work together and help eachother if you could just change society? Perhaps you have had different experiances than I, but from what I've seen of the world that simply isn't the case. Sure, getting rid of greed would be good, but you can't do it, even if 99% of the population embraced the new way they'd be devoured by the 1% that saw a chance to get ahead at the expense of others. That is basically why all of the communist governments of the 20th century eventually deveolved into kleptocracy.

Some humans are simply not nice and there is nothing you can do to change it. There is a certain population in the world that simply doesn't care about others. It isn't even necessarily about socialization; modern psychology can show you several basically untreatable disorders that come pretty close to pure evil (antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder come to mind). History is rife with people who were charismatic enough to convince their fellows that they were heroes who we now realize were genuinely evil (Jean-Bedal Bokassa, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic). On a smaller scale you have the parade of serial murderers that every culture in the world has produced, people who rape and murder because they enjoy it and get away with it because they seem like such good guys.

The things you propose would work great in a perfect world, but we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world of great good and great evil separated by vast spans of indifference. It is hard enough to get people to care, and even harder to remain on the side of the angels.

Well, without rapes, do you think the rape centers would have funding?

No. And without people like you who advocate petty theft, corporations wouldn't have to deal with that either.

Just because something exists doesn't make it right.

I'm just saying that if the companies don't want to be stolen from, they shouldn't be controlling the entire economy and forcing people to buy goods from them at overinflated prices.

They force people to buy goods? Maybe your definition of "force" differs from mine.

But now you're in effect saying the companies are "asking for it." Get thee hence from my sight, before I show you by way of rape analogy how offensive that kind of reasoning is!

No. And without people like you who advocate petty theft, corporations wouldn't have to deal with that either.

Just because something exists doesn't make it right.



They force people to buy goods? Maybe your definition of "force" differs from mine.

But now you're in effect saying the companies are "asking for it." Get thee hence from my sight, before I show you by way of rape analogy how offensive that kind of reasoning is!

...I think you're misunderstanding my actual position on these things. I am a hardcore-leftist. I think that business should be regulated on an extreme level. I'm just showing that if you have a rightist economy, it self-justifies stealing. I don't support stealing (or rape for that matter; but let's stay on topic), and that's exactly why I'm against capitalism. Companies are stealing from the people legally; why can't the people legally steal back? It's because they *also* establish a rightist social system where the strong control everything. Thus, Right economy + Right socially = Morally wrong (to most people). That's why I say that stealing should be legal in a capitalistic system (technically, it's the more moral thing to do).

Companies are stealing from the people legally; why can't the people legally steal back? It's because they *also* establish a rightist social system where the strong control everything. Thus, Right economy + Right socially = Morally wrong (to most people). That's why I say that stealing should be legal in a capitalistic system (technically, it's the more moral thing to do).
And your proof for all of this would be???

What do you propose as an alternative?

So what you're saying is that, since the economic system is capitalistic in nature, it's ok to steal from it and make the rest of us pay more for your personal beliefs? Hogwash!

...I think you're misunderstanding my actual position on these things. I am a hardcore-leftist.

Oh, I know it. It's pretty obvious... no offense intended. ;)

I'm just showing that if you have a rightist economy, it self-justifies stealing.

You haven't actually shown that. You've shown that YOU justify stealing somehow by the fact that it happens and that corporations take actions against it.

I don't support stealing (or rape for that matter; but let's stay on topic), and that's exactly why I'm against capitalism. Companies are stealing from the people legally;

No, actually, they aren't.

why can't the people legally steal back?

Even if we accept your flawed posit that companies steal from anyone, two wrongs do not make a right.

It's because they *also* establish a rightist social system where the strong control everything. Thus, Right economy + Right socially = Morally wrong (to most people).

Er, no. You're trying to ramrod anyone who believes in a free market into being a social conservative. Despite what the Democrats and Republicans think, this is not the case. Certainly not with me.

That's why I say that stealing should be legal in a capitalistic system (technically, it's the more moral thing to do).

Stealing IS legal in a capitalistic (and a socialist and communistic) system, true: it's called taxation. And it's not moral.

Since you two are so "keen" on the economy, then perhaps you can show me a rightist economy where all the companies are fair to the people. Or is that too hard to handle?

Stealing IS legal in a capitalistic (and a socialist and communistic) system, true: it's called taxation. And it's not moral.

Um, ok. How should defense and welfare (the two best examples) be run without taxation?

Since you two are so "keen" on the economy, then perhaps you can show me a rightist economy where all the companies are fair to the people. Or is that too hard to handle?

*prepares for a long wait*

*prepares for a long wait*

LOL

So true.

Oh, and don't give me that "Oh, but China and the U.S.S.R. had corrupt leftist economies!" By definition, those were actually extreme rightist economies. And yes, the hunters and gatherers pre-civilization had an extremely successful form of leftist economy.

Owned.

Since you two are so "keen" on the economy, then perhaps you can show me a rightist economy where all the companies are fair to the people. Or is that too hard to handle?

Besides being irrelevant to the topic at hand, this shows me that you really have nothing else to say and are just demanding I answer a loaded question entirely dependent on your definition of fair - which based on your earlier posts I am positive is not the same one I use.

Um, ok. How should defense and welfare (the two best examples) be run without taxation?

Where did I say I was in favor of either one in the first place? Just because you see defense as necessary doesn't in any way justify forcing people to work for the state.

Besides being irrelevant to the topic at hand, this shows me that you really have nothing else to say and are just demanding I answer a loaded question entirely dependent on your definition of fair - which based on your earlier posts I am positive is not the same one I use.

Well, I mean if *you* can't find one, then how is your argument even going to be valid?

Um, ok. How should defense and welfare (the two best examples) be run without taxation?
Agreed. Taxation isn't stealing, it's allowing you to pay less for things you take for granted. Look at healthcare: In Canada, we're taxed a little higher, sure, but we get free healthcare in most cases, unless the procedure is elective. Heck, we even get it covered when an otherwise elective procedure is done for legitimate medical reasons (eg. breast reduction when you've got MAJOR back and health problems because of them). Meanwhile, in the US, you pay a little less in taxes, but if you break an arm or a leg, you PAY an arm or a leg.

Taxation is a good thing, when the money is being used for the benefit of the country. Yes, a fair portion of it goes to the pockets of the politicians as their pay, but enough is spent where it matters that it's most definitely worth it.

Where did I say I was in favor of either one in the first place? Just because you see defense as necessary doesn't in any way justify forcing people to work for the state.

And what about welfare? Shouldn't those who are unable to work be supported or should they be left to the figurative wolves?

Well, I mean if *you* can't find one, then how is your argument even going to be valid?

If I can't find one what?

My argument is just a matter of tearing apart your "it's OK to steal!" comments, which I think I did a pretty job of doing since now you're off on some random tangent and claiming its part of my argument.

LOL

So true.

Oh, and don't give me that "Oh, but China and the U.S.S.R. had corrupt leftist economies!" By definition, those were actually extreme rightist economies. And yes, the hunters and gatherers pre-civilization had an extremely successful form of leftist economy.

Owned.

Owned, my fat capitalist hairy ass.

And yes, hunter-gatherer societies have functional leftist economies. Now if only we could get rid of the 6 billion or so people that currently exist so that they would work again! I know, let's have Siberian death camps, that way we'll have a low enough population that we can finally live in peace and harmony with 1.5 square miles per person in an agrarian egalitarian state!

And what about welfare? Shouldn't those who are unable to work be supported or should they be left to the figurative wolves?

You honestly think I'm pro-welfare? If I'm against stealing, it kinda follows that I'm against stealing from the rich and giving to the poor too. So yes... get a job.

Taxation is a good thing, when the money is being used for the benefit of the country. Yes, a fair portion of it goes to the pockets of the politicians as their pay, but enough is spent where it matters that it's most definitely worth it.

Ha! Yeah, and I've heard RAVE reviews about people who are protected by the mafia too. Look, maybe you think it's "worth it," but that doesn't mean it isn't theft. Taxation is "give me a percent of your earnings or else I put you in a hurt locker." It's an offer you can't refuse. Just because someone MIGHT do SOME good things with what they steal, doesn't mean it's OK to steal.

And what about welfare? Shouldn't those who are unable to work be supported or should they be left to the figurative wolves?

You honestly think I'm pro-welfare? If I'm against stealing, it kinda follows that I'm against stealing from the rich and giving to the poor too. So yes... get a job.


Did you even read my post? I said should people who are UNABLE to work be supported, The disabled or seriously ill for example.

Are you seriously suggesting that these people should be left to starve?

If I can't find one what?

One rightist economy that's fair. Seems that's too hard for you to do.

My argument is just a matter of tearing apart your "it's OK to steal!" comments, which I think I did a pretty job of doing since now you're off on some random tangent and claiming its part of my argument.

Well, I said:
"Companies are stealing from the people legally..."
And then you said:
"No, actually, they aren't."
Therefore, I conclude that you MUST think that companies are being fair.

Owned, my fat capitalist hairy ass.

You betcha.

And yes, hunter-gatherer societies have functional leftist economies. Now if only we could get rid of the 6 billion or so people that currently exist so that they would work again! I know, let's have Siberian death camps, that way we'll have a low enough population that we can finally live in peace and harmony with 1.5 square miles per person in an agrarian egalitarian state!

Hey, you said it, not me. I don't support that kinda stuff. :p
And I *did* find a working leftist economy. I never said it was plausable (although I think it is). Historically, leftist economies have always been fair and rightist economies have always been corrupt. I opt for the former.

You honestly think I'm pro-welfare? If I'm against stealing, it kinda follows that I'm against stealing from the rich and giving to the poor too. So yes... get a job.



Ha! Yeah, and I've heard RAVE reviews about people who are protected by the mafia too. Look, maybe you think it's "worth it," but that doesn't mean it isn't theft. Taxation is "give me a percent of your earnings or else I put you in a hurt locker." It's an offer you can't refuse. Just because someone MIGHT do SOME good things with what they steal, doesn't mean it's OK to steal.
It's not so easy to get a job in all places in the world. Not everyone that's on welfare is on it because they want to be. Believe me, most are on it because there's no other way for them to survive.

And it's not a matter of "tax dollars MIGHT go to something worthwhile", it's a matter of "tax dollars GO to something worthwhile." Without taxes, I don't see a way a first-world country could survive. Feel free to give me an example of a first-world country without taxes, of course. I don't claim to know everything about every country in the world or anything. I just don't agree that taxation is so bad, when so much of the money goes right back to the people. Everything right down to SCHOOLING is covered by taxes.

Santa Barbara, you are owned. Face it.
Offline!

Hey, you said it, not me. I don't support that kinda stuff. :p
And I *did* find a working leftist economy. I never said it was plausable (although I think it is). Historically, leftist economies have always been fair and rightist economies have always been corrupt. I opt for the former.

Name the "leftist" economies.

Name the "leftist" economies.

Well Chile did pretty well under Salvatore Allende, unfortunately American pressure stopped a lot of foreign trade with Chile and eventually the CIA paid the army led by General Pinochet to take over. Maybe if America stopped interferring with leftist economies they might do better.

Santa Barbara, you are owned. Face it.
Offline!

:rolleyes: Hey maybe if you say it often enough, it'll be true!

Fact is, I've handed you your ass on a platter several times and you're just unwilling to see it.

Did you even read my post? I said should people who are UNABLE to work be supported, The disabled or seriously ill for example.

Are you seriously suggesting that these people should be left to starve?

Well, when you paint a false dichotomy of either welfare or starving people, it's rather one-sided. But that isn't the case. I know plenty of people who don't have welfare, jobs OR starvation! OMG how can that be! If you can figure that mystery out you will have answered your questions.

One rightist economy that's fair. Seems that's too hard for you to do.


Well, I said:
"Companies are stealing from the people legally..."
And then you said:
"No, actually, they aren't."
Therefore, I conclude that you MUST think that companies are being fair.

Congratulations. I DO think they're being fair. You're quick, you are.

Hey, you said it, not me. I don't support that kinda stuff.
And I *did* find a working leftist economy. I never said it was plausable (although I think it is). Historically, leftist economies have always been fair and rightist economies have always been corrupt. I opt for the former.

Historically, you're sadly wrong. But I won't get into it as you've already shown you're one of those communist apologetists who insist that communism, leftism and socialism had nothing at all to do with the USSR or the PRC, ever. Frankly if you think that there is no reasoning with you and I'd rather spend my time bashing my head into a brick post.

It's not so easy to get a job in all places in the world. Not everyone that's on welfare is on it because they want to be. Believe me, most are on it because there's no other way for them to survive.

Oh, I know its not easy to get a job in all places in the world, especially since most places overregulate the economy and drain the income of all their citizens. It's hard to survive when the government takes a quarter of what you earn, indeed.

And it's not a matter of "tax dollars MIGHT go to something worthwhile", it's a matter of "tax dollars GO to something worthwhile." Without taxes, I don't see a way a first-world country could survive.

So, if everyone else does it, it's OK? Because you see no other way of life than the prison you're in, prison is necessary?

I just don't agree that taxation is so bad, when so much of the money goes right back to the people. Everything right down to SCHOOLING is covered by taxes.

Ah yes... public schooling.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg/250px-1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg

Of course, there's also private education. And there's the fact that hundreds of billions of tax dollars funding a war in Iraq is hardly what I would call "not so bad." It does go right back to the people.... in the form of fiery death from above! But those would be Iraqi people in this case. Me, the only thing I get is a fuck-you from the government each paycheck.

Taxation is theft.

Well Chile did pretty well under Salvatore Allende, unfortunately American pressure stopped a lot of foreign trade with Chile and eventually the CIA paid the army led by General Pinochet to take over. Maybe if America stopped interferring with leftist economies they might do better.

Not really. They did improve some things, but only one year after he entered office Chile was hit with hyperinflation and stagnation in living standards along with the rise of shortages and black markets.

This was mostly do to the mismanagement of monetary policy; the Allende presidency was very successful in social welfare and education, but failed in economic matters because they were too restrictive of the underdeveloped, copper-based economy.

Pinochet would have been an excellent leader had he not dismantled the social infrastructure created by Allende and ruled as a repressive tyrant. His economic liberalization combined with the retention of at least some of Allende's social structure would have likely proven a total success.

Pinochet would have been an excellent leader had he not dismantled the social infrastructure created by Allende and ruled as a repressive tyrant.

ROFLMFAO!!!:p

I wish my jolt account was working properly so I could quote this.

ROFLMFAO!!!:p
I wish my jolt account was working properly so I could quote this.

How's that for an excuse? You could use it for anyone...:D

Not really. They did improve some things, but only one year after he entered office Chile was hit with hyperinflation and stagnation in living standards along with the rise of shortages and black markets.

This was mostly do to the mismanagement of monetary policy; the Allende presidency was very successful in social welfare and education, but failed in economic matters because they were too restrictive of the underdeveloped, copper-based economy.

Pinochet would have been an excellent leader had he not dismantled the social infrastructure created by Allende and ruled as a repressive tyrant. His economic liberalization combined with the retention of at least some of Allende's social structure would have likely proven a total success.

Well, this is what I found on Wiki (yes I know it isn't that reliable but I've got to go in a minute):

The Nixon administration brought international financial pressure to bear in order to restrict economic credit to Chile. Simultaneously, the CIA funded opposition media, politicians, and organizations, helping to accelerate a campaign of domestic destabilization.

Now, assuming this to be true it would seem that Chile could have worked out very well if it hadn't been for the destabilisation caused by Nixon's actions. You also admit that the economy was under-developed, I would guess that if Socialism was brought in in a better developed country then it could work very well.

Ah well, I'm off now. Good night.:)

Now, assuming this to be true it would seem that Chile could have worked out very well if it hadn't been for the destabilisation caused by Nixon's actions. You also admit that the economy was under-developed, I would guess that if Socialism was brought in in a better developed country then it could work very well.

Ah well, I'm off now. Good night.:)

Allende made the mistake of keeping the economy centered on copper production, and the price plunged during the 1970's, making it virtually impossible to keep the economy running properly. He also did it too quickly; if it were implemented over a longer time and without nationalization, the social infrastructure would have worked quite well.

Since you two are so "keen" on the economy, then perhaps you can show me a rightist economy where all the companies are fair to the people. Or is that too hard to handle?

Nothing is fair, all interactions end up with a winner and a loser. In a leftist society, the control is excercised by the government as is the theft. What it comes down to isn't who is going to be more fait, it is who is going to do less damage. I don't trust large corporations very much, but I trust them quite a bhit more than I trust governments.

Life isn't fair and ideology is about choosing who is going to do the least damage to your liberty. In a perfect world it would be different, but we don;t live in a perfect world, we live in this little slice of mother natures cruel bosom and we have to adapt to the rules that are given. Justice doesn't even play into it.

And yes, the hunters and gatherers pre-civilization had an extremely successful form of leftist economy.

Owned.

No, they had anarchy. They had the survival of the meanest. They had a lack of anything that even vaguely resembled social justice. Theirs was a system in which protections and charities were only so strong as the individuals who could bring to bear the most force. Sorry, I'll pass on your leftist utopia of rule based on monomacy.

Oh, and in the future, if you don't want to sound like a petulant child, do refrain from using "owned" in anything but an ironic context.

Agreed. Taxation isn't stealing, it's allowing you to pay less for things you take for granted. Look at healthcare: In Canada, we're taxed a little higher, sure, but we get free healthcare in most cases, unless the procedure is elective. Heck, we even get it covered when an otherwise elective procedure is done for legitimate medical reasons (eg. breast reduction when you've got MAJOR back and health problems because of them). Meanwhile, in the US, you pay a little less in taxes, but if you break an arm or a leg, you PAY an arm or a leg.

Taxation is a good thing, when the money is being used for the benefit of the country. Yes, a fair portion of it goes to the pockets of the politicians as their pay, but enough is spent where it matters that it's most definitely worth it.

Taxation is theft as long as there is no element of consent. It is extortion with the full power of a government behind it. Yeah, it's a necessary evil in larger socieities, but when you start taxing to feed an ever expanding government, you begin run into dangers. Especially since I can't think of a single nation on earth where the penalty for tax evasion is refusal of government services. Nope, its jail time. You money or your freedom, and don't dare fight back or the nice officer behind me will put a bullet in you.

Oh, and if I break my leg, I chose to enroll in health insurance so I won't pay an arm and a leg. It was a consensual exchange with no government entity involved. The difference between that and taxation is that I have the option to spend my money in another way, I have the freedom to opt out. Were I to be truely indigent, I would have several free hospitals available, not to mention quite a few private clinics with a sliding scale.

Offline!

...? "I win because I declare I have won, goodbye!"

Charming.

Well Chile did pretty well under Salvatore Allende, unfortunately American pressure stopped a lot of foreign trade with Chile and eventually the CIA paid the army led by General Pinochet to take over. Maybe if America stopped interferring with leftist economies they might do better.

And maybe if it wasn't America it would have been someone else. Welcome to the real world, heres your helmet. There will always be another tribe, another clan, another country, there will always be barbarians at the gate. No matter how well you build a society, there will always be forces there to subvert or attack it. Allende lacked the power to defend his country and he fell. Right or wrong doesn't factor into it. There will always be those who are greedy, jealous, or just plain hateful, the trick is to build a society that has defenses in place to limit the destruction these forces cause. Capitalism is a bad system, but it is the best of a bad lot. You have to work with what you have. Warm fuzzy ideals and denial just leave you another carcass at the edge of the waterhole.