Work or Starve?

[Night Ripper]

Many people claim that anarcho-capitalism isn't freedom because you still have a master that requires you to work or starve. So tell me this, will I be fed without having to work under whatever system you're advocating? If not, how can you complain? If so, I look forward to the free ride you'll be providing me because I'll refuse to work under any other system than the one I advocate.

[Veovis]

Of course. Maybe not at first, but eventually that's the goal. You get what you need regardless of whether you work or not.

Good luck not-working though. Are you just going to sit at home and do absolutely nothing, let your home fall into disrepair, and gain massive amounts of weight?

This is all basically moot, though. I don't expect people like you to survive the revolutionary process. ;)

[artanis17]

Crapitalism -> You work to live

Socialism -> You live to work

Communism -> You live

[Night Ripper]

Are you just going to sit at home and do absolutely nothing, let your home fall into disrepair, and gain massive amounts of weight?

I won't be doing nothing. I'll probably be watching TV or reading a book. Don't worry though. I'll make sure my home is repaired by my fellow comrades. I'll watch them work for me while I sip lemonade. As for gaining weight, I'll go get free liposuction whenever I need to. It's going to be sweet doing absolutely nothing productive and getting rewarded for it.


I don't expect people like you to survive the revolutionary process. ;)

Why not? Do you plan to execute undesirables? Or do you just plan on starving them like Stalin did to the Ukrainians? Either way, when it suites me I'll pretend I'm one of you. It's pretty easy to just spout random buzzwords like "class traitor", "petit bourgeoisie" and other bullshit. No, seriously comrade, I'm with you. :thumbup1:


Crapitalism -> You work to live

Socialism -> You live to work

Communism -> You live

So under communism food just falls from the sky and nobody ever has to work in order to survive? It must be nice living in fantasy land.

[Revolutionair]

Basically you are saying: people have to eat to survive. People have to work to create food. Because you always have to work to survive, it is okay to create a brutal hierarchical system that exploits the majority of the world.

About "So tell me this, will I be fed without having to work under whatever system you're advocating?", I don't know. You might get away with it I guess. But we don't know what values our future society will have. We might begin to value lazyness, creating only the minimum amount of feed, we might begin to value work more as an end on its own. Communists are not utopians, we don't design future societies. We base our movement on the present material conditions and the expansion of working class power.

[Revolutionair]

Why not? Do you plan to execute undesirables? Or do you just plan on starving them like Stalin did to the Ukrainians?

Don't forget the pregnant women that Stalin tortured, and afterwards he'd rip out and eat the unborn babies. :blink:

[artanis17]

So under communism food just falls from the sky and nobody ever has to work in order to survive? It must be nice living in fantasy land.

There is no perfect description for how communism will look like. But you may use your imagination a bit. Use scientific progress positively in order to find optimum ways of producing nutrition. Some people may have just their own gardens and communities where people would like to work voluntarily for production of food for own or others.

But this is just my imagination. It could look different. Science does not have limits and if used properly can ease the work a lot.

It can take several thousand years to reach this level in human progress of society.

Personally I love to work in garden.

[Veovis]

I won't be doing nothing. I'll probably be watching TV or reading a book. Don't worry though. I'll make sure my home is repaired by my fellow comrades. I'll watch them work for me while I sip lemonade.

Why would they work to repair your home? As a favor? You seem like a thoroughly unlikeable person, so I doubt that would be the case.


As for gaining weight, I'll go get free liposuction whenever I need to. It's going to be sweet doing absolutely nothing productive and getting rewarded for it.It would probably be rather difficult to find a doctor who would do a medically unnecessary cosmetic procedure since there is very little social need for such a thing.


Why not? Do you plan to execute undesirables? Or do you just plan on starving them like Stalin did to the Ukrainians? Either way, when it suites me I'll pretend I'm one of you. It's pretty easy to just spout random buzzwords like "class traitor", "petit bourgeoisie" and other bullshit. No, seriously comrade, I'm with you. :thumbup1:Unless you're caught fighting or sabotaging the revolution, you'll probably be fine.


So under communism food just falls from the sky and nobody ever has to work in order to survive? It must be nice living in fantasy land.The concept of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" probably wouldn't apply right after the revolution is finished. It's a goal, but not one that can be implemented right away. In a new socialist society, you would be expected to work for a wage, but instead of the surplus labor you produce going into corporate profit, it would be democratically controlled by you and the other people in your workplace.

So if you're going to be petulant, you probably will starve. Not like anyone would care. :lol:

[Blackburn]

Many people claim that anarcho-capitalism isn't freedom because you still have a master that requires you to work or starve. So tell me this, will I be fed without having to work under whatever system you're advocating? If not, how can you complain? If so, I look forward to the free ride you'll be providing me because I'll refuse to work under any other system than the one I advocate.

The only thing the upper class in Capitalism knows is to exploit the current system like vampires, living off other people's labour.

So yes, I understand why you all think that everyone would just be lazy under communism.

Because that's your current modus operandi.

[Night Ripper]

Basically you are saying: people have to eat to survive. People have to work to create food. Because you always have to work to survive, it is okay to create a brutal hierarchical system that exploits the majority of the world.

No, I'm saying that you will be a wage slave under any system so whining about being a wage slave under capitalism is a red herring.

[artanis17]

Don't forget the pregnant women that Stalin tortured, and afterwards he'd rip out and eat the unborn babies.

Yeah when somebody pushes Stalin so much forward in order to strengthen his anti-communist arguments. It gives the feeling that he is either too skin-deep ignorant or a troll.

[Veovis]

No, I'm saying that you will be a wage slave under any system so whining about being a wage slave under capitalism is a red herring.

How can you claim to be a wage-slave when you control the outcome of your labor through democratic means?

[hatzel]

No, I'm saying that you will be a wage slave under any system so whining about being a wage slave under capitalism is a red herring.

You say this almost as if you believe it to be true. Interesting. What exactly is a 'wage slave,' praytell?

[RGacky3]

Many people claim that anarcho-capitalism isn't freedom because you still have a master that requires you to work or starve. So tell me this, will I be fed without having to work under whatever system you're advocating? If not, how can you complain? If so, I look forward to the free ride you'll be providing me because I'll refuse to work under any other system than the one I advocate.


If our the type of person that is TOTALLY happy to be an unproductive nothing in society, and feel and be totally worthless, then fine.

But very few people, if any are actually like that if they are given freedom over their labor and autonomy.

Of coarse I'd rather do nothing than be a slave, but not rather do nothing than be productive and have a say over my produce.

People innately want to be productive and useful.

(btw, someone quote me, this intellectual coward, put me on the ignore list, as he does anyone whome he cannot debate.)

[Ostrinski]

I'd rather smoke cigars all day. To each their own.

[Night Ripper]

Basically you are saying: people have to eat to survive. People have to work to create food. Because you always have to work to survive, it is okay to create a brutal hierarchical system that exploits the majority of the world.

About "So tell me this, will I be fed without having to work under whatever system you're advocating?", I don't know. You might get away with it I guess. But we don't know what values our future society will have. We might begin to value lazyness, creating only the minimum amount of feed, we might begin to value work more as an end on its own. Communists are not utopians, we don't design future societies. We base our movement on the present material conditions and the expansion of working class power.

Free trade is not "brutal exploitation".

[Night Ripper]

It would probably be rather difficult to find a doctor who would do a medically unnecessary cosmetic procedure since there is very little social need for such a thing.

Yet another flaw in your system, instead of each person being able to pursue their own ends, it's all boiled down to "social need" and "common good".

No thanks.

[Blake's Baby]

Communism is predicated on people being rational and indeed humane. If people are not rational and humane, communism can't work. The majority is rational and humane. A small minority is not.

So, should the rest of us abide by your irrational and inhumane system, or should you abide by ours?

You decide.

[Revolution starts with U]

If our the type of person that is TOTALLY happy to be an unproductive nothing in society, and feel and be totally worthless, then fine.

But very few people, if any are actually like that if they are given freedom over their labor and autonomy.

Of coarse I'd rather do nothing than be a slave, but not rather do nothing than be productive and have a say over my produce.

People innately want to be productive and useful.

(btw, someone quote me, this intellectual coward, put me on the ignore list, as he does anyone whome he cannot debate.)

You're welcome

[RGacky3]

Free trade is not "brutal exploitation".

Free trade is a contradiction in terms under capitalism, there is nothing free about it.


Yet another flaw in your system, instead of each person being able to pursue their own ends, it's all boiled down to "social need" and "common good".

No thanks.

All economic activity is necessarily social, so although you pursue your own ends, the economic system has to take the social context into account.

(someone quote me, this intellectual coward ignores anyone he can't deal with).

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, you can eat and do nothing. We produce way more than enough food, so who cares.

Its not like under capitalism where you can do all the things everyone else wants to do without putting in a single day's work. This is like when the big schtick of "poor people have refrigerators, they're not poor" was going around. OMG the poor work part time and have a fridge they cant stock! The travesty!

[Veovis]

Yet another flaw in your system, instead of each person being able to pursue their own ends, it's all boiled down to "social need" and "common good".

No thanks.

If you want lipo so badly, study medicine and learn to perform it on yourself. Here's a hint: in your case, I'd start with the endocranial adipose deposits.

[Blake's Baby]

Free trade is a contradiction in terms under capitalism, there is nothing free about it.



All economic activity is necessarily social, so although you pursue your own ends, the economic system has to take the social context into account.

(someone quote me, this intellectual coward ignores anyone he can't deal with).

So instead of debating with him, why not let him be?

He calls himself a 'rugged individualist'. He probably doesn't want anyone else's opinion.

How does one put someone on an 'ignore' list? Maybe we could all ignore him?

[Revolution starts with U]

Communism is predicated on people being rational and indeed humane. If people are not rational and humane, communism can't work. The majority is rational and humane. A small minority is not.

So, should the rest of us abide by your irrational and inhumane system, or should you abide by ours?

You decide.

Nonsense. Socialism requires the working class pursuing their self-interest; a global society of voluntary laborers where the Individual is given the full value of her labor.

Everyone acting morally and rationally is utopic, and we are not utopians.

[Quail]

Yet another flaw in your system, instead of each person being able to pursue their own ends, it's all boiled down to "social need" and "common good".

No thanks.
If people work together to get all of the socially necessary and socially valuable work done, and work on using and advancing technology that makes that easier, it will leave everyone with more time and more importantly the freedom to improve themselves and do what they want to do without having to worry about where there next meal comes from, or worry about being able to afford to better themselves.

[RGacky3]

So instead of debating with him, why not let him be?

I'm under the (perhaps naive) assumption that people respond to reason.

[Tim Cornelis]

It is not 'work or starve' an sich that I have a problem with, it is as follows:

Capitalism

You either sell your labour power to an authority figure who will subdue and subject you to the most horrendous conditions as well as limiting your personal autonomy (as you must unconditionally submit to his will within the workplace, and usually to a certain degree outside) or starve.

Communism

You either work autonomously, freely, and cooperatively in favourable conditions or you starve.

It is thus the power dynamics that is the root of the problem. "Anarcho-capitalism"/nonarchism is not freedom because the worker has no control over his life in the economic (or social) sphere, he is a subject to a master, not because he has to work. In communism there is no master, or rather everyone is his own master.

[Ele'ill]

If so, I look forward to the free ride you'll be providing me because I'll refuse to work under any other system than the one I advocate.

And when you get bored and start doing what you love and interacting with people I will shake your hand and say "thank you for doing what you are truly passionate about, you're really good at it and I can see you're working with other people on these projects (whatever it might be). You'll be contributing what you can alongside everyone else.

[artanis17]

Starve

[Night Ripper]

And when you get bored and start doing what you love...

So you think there is someone out there that loves cleaning up shit and doing back-breaking labor?

[Ele'ill]

So you think there is someone out there that loves cleaning up shit and doing back-breaking labor?

Fuck yeah. Do you know how important sewer maintenance/repair stuff is? Know how everyone for five city blocks pisses and moans for weeks when there's a tiny block up in it and the smell is awful? Yeah, shit like that literally. Back-breaking labor no thanks cause there shouldn't be labor that's breaking people's backs or wearing them out as it is now. There are approaches to it and if you mean 'really physical labor' then fuck yeah to that too cause I love it.

[RGacky3]

If there is a need for work that no one wants to do, there is no reason that can't be dealt with democratically/voluntarily, or shared, or given to someone in exchange for some other benefit or something.

[Decommissioner]

Many people claim that anarcho-capitalism isn't freedom because you still have a master that requires you to work or starve. So tell me this, will I be fed without having to work under whatever system you're advocating? If not, how can you complain? If so, I look forward to the free ride you'll be providing me because I'll refuse to work under any other system than the one I advocate.

That will be pretty much impossible. Unless you have some sort of physical or mental disorder that compels you to stay in bed or sit on the couch all and literally do nothing, you will find yourself working whether you would classify it as work or not.

If you have any sort of dreams whatsoever, you will end up working under communism. Except instead of calling it work you will just call it "doing something you love" or "are passionate about."

Also, there will be redundancy and a lack of job market under communism, meaning socially necessary labor opportunities will come to you instead of you go to them. If I was feeling rather bored one day, and a council came up to me and offered me a position at a cafeteria or manufacturing plant for the minimum of a couple weeks, I really have no reason not to take them up. This means getting out of the house, socializing and meeting people plus gaining experiences and having stories to talk about with my friends.

All that food falling from the sky? Yeah we currently have that, except under capitalism we just throw it away. You're delusional if you honestly think we live in a world where resources are actually scarce.

[artanis17]

If there is a need for work that no one wants to do, there is no reason that can't be dealt with democratically/voluntarily, or shared, or given to someone in exchange for some other benefit or something.

There are many examples of youth communes which supports this

[bill_haywood]

Of course millions of people do work everyday free... it's called charity, or helping a family member or comrade. Society and technology produces so much everyday that dealing with a sociopaths stomach is hardly a bother.

[Blake's Baby]

Nonsense. Socialism requires the working class pursuing their self-interest; a global society of voluntary laborers where the Individual is given the full value of her labor.

Everyone acting morally and rationally is utopic, and we are not utopians.

Nonsense. If everyone was given the full 'value' of their labour then the old, the infirm and children, who cannot labour, would die. Nice world you want there.

Now as to 'rational' and 'self-interest'; why do you think that 'acting in one's own self-interest' is not 'rational'?

[Blake's Baby]

I'm under the (perhaps naive) assumption that people respond to reason.

Ahh.

Revolution starts with U would say you were 'utopic'.

I'd say, if we can't persuade him that we're right, we could shun him, and he might realise that debate with other human beings is better than being all butch and sulky - sorry, 'rugged' - on his own.

[Night Ripper]

I'd say, if we can't persuade him that we're right, we could shun him, and he might realise that debate with other human beings is better than being all butch and sulky - sorry, 'rugged' - on his own.

Shun me all you want as long as you don't touch me or my property.

[Revolutionair]

Shun me all you want as long as you don't touch me or my property.

But I don't give a fuck if your property is your property. I probably wouldn't even notice that when using it. So you're out of luck on 50% of your demands.

[Night Ripper]

But I don't give a fuck if your property is your property. I probably wouldn't even notice that when using it.

Try it and see what happens.

[Blake's Baby]

You don't have any property. All property under capitalism is stolen, therefore all claims on it are invalid. Don't worry, after the revolution there'll be plenty for us all to have a lovely time.

[Night Ripper]

All property under capitalism is stolen, therefore all claims on it are invalid. Don't worry, after the revolution there'll be plenty for us all to have a lovely time.

The result of all political systems is to reduce diversity into a set of "common ends" based on the will of the majority (or whoever else can grab power). If you want anything outside of what the lowest common denominator wants, you'll be shit out of luck.

[Decommissioner]

The result of all political systems is to reduce diversity into a set of "common ends" based on the will of the majority (or whoever else can grab power). If you want anything outside of what the lowest common denominator wants, you'll be shit out of luck.

If you want something that most do not, you can take initiative and make it happen. Capitalism already appeals to the lowest common denominator. They want to ensure they can make a profit, thus greatly reducing what you call diversity.

Under capitalism, you have to be rich to set up a factory and make commodities. Under socialism all you would need is to gather like minded workers and start a council/commune (however you want to word it). Something doesn't have to be profitable to exist in a communist society.

Naturally, this means there is infinitely more "choice" under socialism because we can make the products and inventions we want to see, rather than be handed down a choice by capitalists. This also solves supply and demand, since if there is a demand for a commodity that does not exist or exists in low supply, those who demand can partake in the making of the commodity thus supplying it to themselves and others.

This isn't rocket science. We (or at least, I) are being quite literal when we advocate workplace democracy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nonsense. If everyone was given the full 'value' of their labour then the old, the infirm and children, who cannot labour, would die. Nice world you want there.

Now as to 'rational' and 'self-interest'; why do you think that 'acting in one's own self-interest' is not 'rational'?

Nothing in socialism requires care for the elderly or infirm. We assume that will be a necessary outcome based on people's general ethical choices.

Capitalism can have social security and universal healthcare, my friend. It cannot have worker control of the mop.

Rational, to me, is using logic and foresight, not purposeful action.

[RGacky3]

Shun me all you want as long as you don't touch me or my property.

What property, you own a facotyr? You run a bank? No one gives a shit about your property. I guarantee it.

[RGacky3]

The result of all political systems is to reduce diversity into a set of "common ends" based on the will of the majority (or whoever else can grab power). If you want anything outside of what the lowest common denominator wants, you'll be shit out of luck.

Not unless what you want significantly effects other people.

[Revolutionair]

What property, you own a facotyr? You run a bank? No one gives a shit about your property. I guarantee it.

Hmm, I probably should have said that in my post.


Marxists differentiate between property and possessions. I am not going to socialize your toothbrush or your bed, because those things are your personal possessions. Property in the Marxist sense refers to the means of production: machines, factories, etc.

No communist wants to socialize your personal belongings, we focus on the means of production for a reason.

Marxists see the history of class society as a history of class struggle. The ruling class in society is the class that owns the means of production. Through history there have been different modes of production, each with its own economic laws and consequences. The foundation of property can be found in primitive accumulation and slavery. Contemporary property is based on that foundation of property.

By socializing the means of production, the need for a state (and thus state violence) and ruling classes (hierarchy) will both 'wither away'.

[Blake's Baby]

Nothing in socialism requires care for the elderly or infirm. We assume that will be a necessary outcome based on people's general ethical choices...

And yet when I said that socialism was predicated on people being 'humane' you said I was 'utopic'

And now you think people will be ethical?

Which is it?

Or do you really think children, the infirm and the elderly will be left to die because 'the individual is given the full value of her labour'?

Maybe you think the fit, working people should decide whether or not to allow the weak to live as an act of charity.

I say again, nice world you're proposing there.


...Capitalism can have social security and universal healthcare, my friend. It cannot have worker control of the mop.

Rational, to me, is using logic and foresight, not purposeful action.

Which isn't what was being discussed. I said 'rational' and you said 'in their own interests'. What, pray tell, do you think the difference is between a 'rational' act and an act 'in their own interest'? What about self-interest do you consider 'irrational'?

[RGacky3]

Which isn't what was being discussed. I said 'rational' and you said 'in their own interests'. What, pray tell, do you think the difference is between a 'rational' act and an act 'in their own interest'? What about self-interest do you consider 'irrational'?

They're talking about 2 seperate things, "self-interest" is a motivation, rationality is coherance.

For example I can get drunk sunday night, its in my self interest, but not rational, (because I did'nt take into account work tommorow).

I could also volunteer to help build hospitals in some remote place, its not in my "self interest" at least that is'nt my immediate motivation, but if I plan it out and take everything into consideration it is rational.


Nothing in socialism requires care for the elderly or infirm. We assume that will be a necessary outcome based on people's general ethical choices.

Capitalism can have social security and universal healthcare, my friend. It cannot have worker control of the mop.

Rational, to me, is using logic and foresight, not purposeful action.

I think you have 2 issues here, the macro issue and the micro issue.

In the micro issue, i.e. internal to individual firms, the decision making of what to do with the outcome of labor is 100% up to the workers.

in the macro issue, i.e. how to organize the whole economy of a community, and deal with the commons, its up to everyone in the community.

So in a sense, its logically POSSIBLE that a community might decide to just let old people die, but given everything we know, its rediculously un probable, so much so its hardly worth talking about.

BTW, it IS self interest to care for the elderly and infirm systematically, because everyone one day will be elderly there is a good chance infirm also.

[Blake's Baby]

...
For example I can get drunk sunday night, its in my self interest, but not rational, (because I did'nt take into account work tommorow)....

No it isn't. 'Self-interest' isn't the same as 'interesting to myself'. 'Self interest' is not the same as 'whim'. One cannot have an 'irrational self interest' because self-interest is rational. It involves calculation of what that interest is.

Otherwise what you mean is 'anything I feel like doing is in my interests'. Which seems to me is obviously lunacy.

[RGacky3]

No it isn't. 'Self-interest' isn't the same as 'interesting to myself'. 'Self interest' is not the same as 'whim'. One cannot have an 'irrational self interest' because self-interest is rational. It involves calculation of what that interest is.

Otherwise what you mean is 'anything I feel like doing is in my interests'. Which seems to me is obviously lunacy.

The point is, self interest depends on being rational, one can pursue self interst irrationally. Unless your defining ratoinality INTO self interest, inwhich thats just a definitional thing and pretty arbitrary.

Take another example, I can follow my self interest in the stock market, but do so irrationally and end up loosing all my money. I can follow some other interest, for example managing some charities peoples money 'pro bono' and do so rationally, and make money for the charity.

You can't define rationality into self interst, because self-interest is a motivation.

[Revolutionair]

Semantics argument, GO!

[Ele'ill]

Shun me all you want as long as you don't touch me or my property.

Depends on what you mean by property.

[Revolution starts with U]

And yet when I said that socialism was predicated on people being 'humane' you said I was 'utopic'

And now you think people will be ethical?

Which is it?

Or do you really think children, the infirm and the elderly will be left to die because 'the individual is given the full value of her labour'?

Maybe you think the fit, working people should decide whether or not to allow the weak to live as an act of charity.

I say again, nice world you're proposing there.



Which isn't what was being discussed. I said 'rational' and you said 'in their own interests'. What, pray tell, do you think the difference is between a 'rational' act and an act 'in their own interest'? What about self-interest do you consider 'irrational'?

Gacky basically summed it up.

I am saying that I ASSUME people are generally ethical when circumstance allows, but nothing in socialism requires it. I know it to be an assumption, and often, tho not usually, circumstance doesn't allow. If the working class is in control of society and decides to let the elderly die, that's unfortunate... but it is still socialism.

As Gacky pointed out, this isn't likely. As you bring power closer and closer to the community, as opposed to a far off minority of elites, it becomes the perrogative of the expressors of power to maintain decent living standards for all.

If socialism requires good ethics, don't expect to see it for a very long time; only when abundance allows.

[Blake's Baby]

The working class is the revolutionary class because by overcoming its own exploitation it can free the whole of the rest of humanity. A future socialist society will not let the elderly die because they can't work, that's a monstrous notion, and if you're prepared to accept that as a possibility I'm going to be fighting you every step of the way to your soylent green future, 'comrade'.

[Night Ripper]

A future socialist society will not let the elderly die because they can't work

I only help people that help themselves. If you are a victim of misfortune, by all means, you deserve help. If you're one of those people that lives recklessly and then ends up old without any kind of plan to support yourself, I'm not going to reward that behavior.

[RGacky3]

I only help people that help themselves. If you are a victim of misfortune, by all means, you deserve help. If you're one of those people that lives recklessly and then ends up old without any kind of plan to support yourself, I'm not going to reward that behavior.

Here we go, 100% the mentality of the right winger.

its judgemental, (btw I guarantee you this dude probably calls himself a christian with no sense of irony or shame), people don't DESERVE any societal help unless they have lived up to HIS standards of what they should do, If someone has made a mistake and is now suffering 20 years down the road, in his mind you MUST make him suffer maximally for that mistake.

BTW, EVERYONE that suffers is a victim of misfortune, if your wealthy you can mess up 20 times over in your youth and be totally fine, if your a poor guy from the hood, mess up ONCE, make ONE mistake, your whole life is over. Yet night ripper thinks that it is wrong to somehow aleviate pain from a mistake, because somehow this judgemental self-righteous dick thinks it will "teach him a lesson." (As if people want to make bad decisions).

What I find interesting is that they don't apply the same logic to themselves.

Why arn't you rich Night Ripper? Why arn't you wealthy? Are you lazy? You don't work hard enough? I thought anyone can get rich in the US, why arn't YOU doing it? Are you just a bum?

EVERYONE that suffers deserves help, don't you ever spout your mouth off about "justice" or "what is moral."

We were discussing sociatal issues, you just revealed your own personal issue, you lack empathy, whats more is that your proud of your lack of empathy, you think its "good" that you willingly shit on people that are slightly less lucky than you.

Not only does your statement show immense ignornance of the real world situations of the poor vrs the rich, it also shows your personal character.

[FALCIGYRL]

I only help people that help themselves. If you are a victim of misfortune, by all means, you deserve help. If you're one of those people that lives recklessly and then ends up old without any kind of plan to support yourself, I'm not going to reward that behavior.

You only help people who help themselves? What kind of system is that? What does that even mean? So instead of setting up a safety net to benefit everybody you'd be spending 20x as much doing background checks to make sure people have the right credentials to 'warrant' your help. Which means more bureaucracy, bigger political bodies with more sweeping powers and Inquisition like trials of the downtrodden for being downtrodden with tons of potential for scary, sweeping abuse of power and corruption that would be a thousand times more costly than helping out people who didn't have a good future fiscal strategy. And for...what?. To make you feel better?

Smart plan. Way to prioritize your civilization. Say hello to permanent structural debt and massive unimpeachable corruption. It's amazing how much fiscally responsible rugged individuals are so willing to set mountains of cash on fire and give enormous amounts of power to governments just so they can feel 'superior' to other people.

Life is not a relay race. If society has to lose that much just to make you feel like you've 'won', it's time to put down your copy of Atlas Shrugged, come to grips with the fact that you have a small penis and just step in front of a train.

[Night Ripper]

Life is not a relay race. If society has to lose that much just to make you feel like you've 'won', it's time to put down your copy of Atlas Shrugged, come to grips with the fact that you have a small penis and just step in front of a train.

Stop with the sexist bullshit. Talking about penis size? What are you, 12?

[FALCIGYRL]

Stop with the sexist bullshit. Talking about penis size? What are you, 12?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You don't have any reply so you debate the joke and take offense and run away with your ball to cry. You're such a whiner. I've seen you do it a thousand times on this board. I'm on my period and I'm less sensitive than you.

Look pal, suck it up. If you don't want to come off as the Man with One Pubic Hair, maybe you should stop proposing systems of government based around burning money at the expense of the downtrodden to stroke your pathetic ego. No, you do not build a society upon the head of a pin. Or a pinhead for that matter. Punishing people living in ruin for making mistakes isn't moral, it isn't justifiable and it isn't fiscally smart in any sense of the term. It's a witch-hunt mentality and it's a red herring that distracts from the problem to focus on some ridiculous invented criteria that only acts to demonize a group of people. All you preach is how violence shouldn't be done to you, and how you deserve your property, but when you preach violence onto others, and propose ideals that would wreak massive dire social consequences, it's all for the GREATER GOOD.

Funny that.

[Blake's Baby]

I think you should leave Night Ripper alone. After all, it's hard enough to be a gay right-winger, I'm sure his fascist friends already take the piss out of him for it, let's not do it as well, eh?

[Night Ripper]

I think you should leave Night Ripper alone. After all, it's hard enough to be a gay right-winger, I'm sure his fascist friends already take the piss out of him for it, let's not do it as well, eh?

Calling people gay as an insult is pretty low. There's nothing wrong with it so why would I be offended? Grow up.

[Blake's Baby]

I didn't think you would be. I'm just saying people shouldn't rib you about it is all.

[Decolonize The Left]

Many people claim that anarcho-capitalism isn't freedom because you still have a master that requires you to work or starve. So tell me this, will I be fed without having to work under whatever system you're advocating? If not, how can you complain? If so, I look forward to the free ride you'll be providing me because I'll refuse to work under any other system than the one I advocate.

Look, anarcho-capitalism is nonsensical. It is basically a more left-wing interpretation of conventional libertarianism which is also self-contradictory. Both anarcho-capitalism and conventional libertarianism operate on a dual-structured system: individual freedom and free market capitalism. Yet what both fail to realize (or admit) is that free market capitalism necessarily curbs and restricts individual freedom through accumulation of capital, polarization of classes, and the underhanded reinforcement of limited opportunity.

Because I, as a minority single mother of three, living on one part-time job in the inner city, cannot have the same opportunities as a white single male with no children and a trust fund. The economic and socio-political realities are stacked against me and in favor of the white male. Just the lay of the land. Capitalism does not negate this, it only reinforces the already unequal distribution of wealth.

For under free-market capitalism, the market determines everything. Yet as someone who possesses a large amount of liquid capital (say, a million dollars), I am in a better position to take advantage of the market system then someone with no liquid capital. In short, I could simply invest my million properly, achieve a 7% yearly return, and I would make more money doing nothing then someone would working 40 hours a week at minimum wage simply off the interest on my money.

Now - the system we are talking about is nothing other than: the working-class taking possession of the means of production and using these means of production for the interests of the working class.

In short, everyone still works, but now they work for themselves and in their own interest. This stands in clear opposition to capitalism where most people work and they work in the interests of the capitalist class.

Make sense?

- August

[Revolution starts with U]

The working class is the revolutionary class because by overcoming its own exploitation it can free the whole of the rest of humanity. A future socialist society will not let the elderly die because they can't work, that's a monstrous notion, and if you're prepared to accept that as a possibility I'm going to be fighting you every step of the way to your soylent green future, 'comrade'.

Look, it is in my politics to protect the elderly, infirm, and children... and everybody for that matter. You are missing the point.
The working class CAN liberate all of humanity. It doesn't have to.

In Nordic countries right now people will not starve, the elderly will not die simply for lack of money. Are you going to claim that is socialism?!

The working class is the most likely class for universal liberation and prosperity; it makes up the bulk of the population, and is the most personally connected with the disenfranchised. In all probability it is far more likely a Socialism society will take care of them than that it will not. But agian, it doesn't have to.


Here we go, 100% the mentality of the right winger.

its judgemental, (btw I guarantee you this dude probably calls himself a christian with no sense of irony or shame), people don't DESERVE any societal help unless they have lived up to HIS standards of what they should do, If someone has made a mistake and is now suffering 20 years down the road, in his mind you MUST make him suffer maximally for that mistake.

BTW, EVERYONE that suffers is a victim of misfortune, if your wealthy you can mess up 20 times over in your youth and be totally fine, if your a poor guy from the hood, mess up ONCE, make ONE mistake, your whole life is over. Yet night ripper thinks that it is wrong to somehow aleviate pain from a mistake, because somehow this judgemental self-righteous dick thinks it will "teach him a lesson." (As if people want to make bad decisions).

What I find interesting is that they don't apply the same logic to themselves.

Why arn't you rich Night Ripper? Why arn't you wealthy? Are you lazy? You don't work hard enough? I thought anyone can get rich in the US, why arn't YOU doing it? Are you just a bum?

EVERYONE that suffers deserves help, don't you ever spout your mouth off about "justice" or "what is moral."

We were discussing sociatal issues, you just revealed your own personal issue, you lack empathy, whats more is that your proud of your lack of empathy, you think its "good" that you willingly shit on people that are slightly less lucky than you.

Not only does your statement show immense ignornance of the real world situations of the poor vrs the rich, it also shows your personal character.

EDIT: I put this quote in there just on the chance that Ripper might read it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Look, anarcho-capitalism is nonsensical. It is basically a more left-wing interpretation of conventional libertarianism which is also self-contradictory. Both anarcho-capitalism and conventional libertarianism operate on a dual-structured system: individual freedom and free market capitalism. Yet what both fail to realize (or admit) is that free market capitalism necessarily curbs and restricts individual freedom through accumulation of capital, polarization of classes, and the underhanded reinforcement of limited opportunity.

Because I, as a minority single mother of three, living on one part-time job in the inner city, cannot have the same opportunities as a white single male with no children and a trust fund. The economic and socio-political realities are stacked against me and in favor of the white male. Just the lay of the land. Capitalism does not negate this, it only reinforces the already unequal distribution of wealth.

For under free-market capitalism, the market determines everything. Yet as someone who possesses a large amount of liquid capital (say, a million dollars), I am in a better position to take advantage of the market system then someone with no liquid capital. In short, I could simply invest my million properly, achieve a 7% yearly return, and I would make more money doing nothing then someone would working 40 hours a week at minimum wage simply off the interest on my money.

Now - the system we are talking about is nothing other than: the working-class taking possession of the means of production and using these means of production for the interests of the working class.

In short, everyone still works, but now they work for themselves and in their own interest. This stands in clear opposition to capitalism where most people work and they work in the interests of the capitalist class.

Make sense?

- August

I'm listening to Wealth of Nations book on tape right now. Chapter 8 explains this pretty well. ... if only these cappies would read the supposed foundational text of their ideology.

[Night Ripper]

In short, everyone still works, but now they work for themselves and in their own interest.

That's how it works now. If I offer you my watch for your shoes and you accept the trade then it must be the case that you value my watch more than your shoes and I value your shoes more than my watch. After the trade, we each end up with something better. We are both better off.

All you're proposing is that if I have a lot of watches, instead of trading for it, you should just be able to take one. That's not "working for myself". I obtained that watch through some trade and now you're stealing it. You're stealing my labor.

[Decolonize The Left]

That's how it works now. If I offer you my watch for your shoes and you accept the trade then it must be the case that you value my watch more than your shoes and I value your shoes more than my watch. After the trade, we each end up with something better. We are both better off.

All you're proposing is that if I have a lot of watches, instead of trading for it, you should just be able to take one. That's not "working for myself". I obtained that watch through some trade and now you're stealing it. You're stealing my labor.

Read this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-theory-faq-t23569/index.html) please. I don't have time to explain basic communism. Your overly simplistic example doesn't begin to cover the enormous intricacies of modern day global capitalism, nor is it anything close to what any remotely coherent person would call a description of an economic system.

So I'm not going to go over what people have already gone over. The link is to an FAQ on communist theory and should explain the basics.

- August

[Night Ripper]

nor is it anything close to [bullshit childish insults omitted] a description of an economic system

It's not a description of an entire economic system and I never said it was.

[artanis17]

qdOJvS3GEwU

[NewSocialist]

http://babyanimalzoo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/lion-cubs-baby.jpg