Ponder This Commies

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I came across this question on another thread in another section but since I'm a "restricted member" I can't possibly respond to it, so here you go. I think it was redstar2000 who proposed this question.



Would anybody like to explain what the term "individual rights" actually means in the context of world dominated by huge multi-national corporations?


When the corporations actually have the ability to take away the power of the vote, then you MIGHT have a point. Until then... all the money and power in the world doesn't hold a candle to the vote, and that rests with the people. If they choose not to exercise it, that is one thing... but the power still rests with the people.

[Osman Ghazi]

the power of the vote

The vote has power? Since when? Sure, it has the power to choose between Democans and Republicrats, but so what? There isn't any difference between them. Ideologically, they are indistinguishable.


all the money and power in the world doesn't hold a candle to the vote

You are so deluded!

Money and power have the ability to influence the vote, even you of all people cannot deny that. The manifest idiocy of your statement is clear: very little of the money and power of the world is needed to destroy the 'power' of the vote.

[T_SP]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2004, 05:49 PM
I came across this question on another thread in another section but since I'm a "restricted member" I can't possibly respond to it, so here you go. I think it was redstar2000 who proposed this question.





When the corporations actually have the ability to take away the power of the vote, then you MIGHT have a point. Until then... all the money and power in the world doesn't hold a candle to the vote, and that rests with the people. If they choose not to exercise it, that is one thing... but the power still rests with the people.
So what do you make of the vote in Florida when Bush got elected?

[/\______/\]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 11 2004, 03:59 PM

The vote has power? Since when? Sure, it has the power to choose between Democans and Republicrats, but so what? There isn't any difference between them. Ideologically, they are indistinguishable.



You are so deluded!

Money and power have the ability to influence the vote, even you of all people cannot deny that. The manifest idiocy of your statement is clear: very little of the money and power of the world is needed to destroy the 'power' of the vote.
There is nothing stopping people voting third party. In this respect Americans are partly to blame for the current poor state of their democracy. There is many other political parties that people could vote for, and the excuses that its 'throwing away your vote' and somehow at the same time 'voting for bush' are absolute rubbish.

Although I agree that in such a large country as the USA, money does influence politics. Media costs to get a party coverage are so much higher. This is the reason why corporations hold so much political power in the US in my opinion, because of how funding is much more important in America and plays more of a key role in elections outcomes.

[monkeydust]

When the corporations actually have the ability to take away the power of the vote, then you MIGHT have a point

Call me a cynic, but the power of the vote already has been taken away.

Thirty years ago, at least in the UK, the difference between the two main parties really mean something.

Now both are so similar that they're even using the same rhetoric - that of "choice".

Both parties' policies are conducive to the interests of business.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The vote has power? Since when? Sure, it has the power to choose between Democans and Republicrats, but so what? There isn't any difference between them. Ideologically, they are indistinguishable.


No differences eh? So friggin what?!

Why don't you try reading something other than garbage put out by the garbage man himself: Redstar2000? You're so narrow minded.

I've said it time and again. There is little difference between Democrats and Republicans, when it comes to their goals. Voters on both sides, want the same things. Security, A good educational system, jobs, lower taxes, Health care, secure retirement.

The ideological differences come in how they want to arrive at those goals. The reason why most third parties very seldom ever make a dent in the vote, is that
their goals are way off balance, from what the majority of the people want.

A mixed economy isn't really all that bad you know? You commies here need to get a grip on reality and stop fighting the system because after all the system works in the peoples' favor. You need to stop over analyzing things.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2004, 03:49 PM
but the power still rests with the people.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything"

Remeber that

[Anti-Capitalist1]

I seem to remember that in the 2000 elections, thousands of blacks in Florida were denied the right to vote, for no other reason than having similar names, social security #'s, etc to convicted felons... hmmm.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, without corporate contributions, you don't have a hope in hell of getting into office, much less the presidency. And these corporations kind of expect their favor to be payed back once you're in office, if you get my drift.

So, money decides the vote, make no mistake about it. Corporations control the supposedly "democratic" process.

[STI]

Why don't you try reading something other than garbage put out by the garbage man himself: Redstar2000? You're so narrow minded.

Ah, the glories of the days where we're still holding to the belief that slinging ad hominem counts as an argument. :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Why don't you try reading something other than garbage put out by the garbage man himself: Redstar2000?

Well, aren't you a sweetie-poo! :wub:


You need to stop over analyzing things.

You need to start thinking about what you're going to say before typing your posts.

Your pathetic faith in the "vote" simply illustrates your unwillingness (or inability) to analyze anything.

I can understand your unwillingness to actually think seriously about capitalism...it's uncomfortable.

But if you're looking for company in your romps through the green pastures of corporate despotism, you've come to the wrong board.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[XYZYX]

You know it would be cool if we could vote for a third party, but since the two parties have created laws that make it difficult for third parties to get on the ballots in all states (especially since all states let up their own election regulations, so a party can get on a few states, but all 50 is quite a challenge) and since the two major parties have such an advantage when it comes to fundraising, third parties sure do have a chance.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Your pathetic faith in the "vote" simply illustrates your unwillingness (or inability) to analyze anything.

You're right, let's take away the right to vote and install a "great leader" who knows what's best for everyone; since, according to you, it's useless. People have the right to assemble, people have the vote, people have the right to free speech. What more do you fucking want?

Again, I'll reiterate:

I've said it time and again. There is little difference between Democrats and Republicans, when it comes to their goals. Voters on both sides, want the same things. Security, A good educational system, jobs, lower taxes, Health care, secure retirement.

The ideological differences come in how they want to arrive at those goals. The reason why most third parties very seldom ever make a dent in the vote, is that
their goals are way off balance, from what the majority of the people want.

[STI]

You are an idiot. Both parties are in the hands of the same people (both in terms of "individuals" and the class as a whole).

Any "differences" between the two parties exist only inasmuch as the ruling class allows.

The same goes for freedom of speech/assembly/etc.

Just look at the PATRIOT ACT.

Our "rights and freedoms" are subject to the whims of the wealthy elite.



**PS** Re-iterating doesn't make you right. It just makes you seem stupid because you have no leg to stand on besides your ability to keep yelling your position.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2004, 12:37 AM

their goals are way off balance, from what the majority of the people want.
Don't you mean what the corporations who pay the party budgets want?

and what the bourgeois capitalist media wants?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

When are you going to get it through your narrow minded pin head, that the MAJORITY of the people, both democrat and republican, and those in the middle, LOVE, ENJOY, ENDORSE, AND SUPPORT the system. We, that is, both liberals and conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans, and the few odd Libertarians, have surrounded the middle.

Only fringe wacko lunatics like you, peeping from the outside in, can perceive our system as you do. It's a fucking shame that your perspective is somewhat akin to a visitor from Alpha Centauri, observing from an upper solar orbit. Get you some sunblock, and get under the shade. The sun is starting to melt your brain.

So in other words, why don't you take your tired rhetoric, Fuck off, and head towards the 3rd world. You might be able to re-convert some back sliding marxists, but you're pissing up a very tall tree here, and it's not a very impressive display. You're getting more on your hands, than you are on the tree....

[pandora]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2004, 07:19 PM
I think it was redstar2000 who proposed this question.





When the corporations actually have the ability to take away the power of the vote, then you MIGHT have a point. Until then... all the money and power in the world doesn't hold a candle to the vote, and that rests with the people. If they choose not to exercise it, that is one thing... but the power still rests with the people.
Actually could have been mine, but could have been any of us.

The great struggle will be between the people and corporate entities and their minions.

It is difficult to have fair elections, and even if you could the media is distorting everything that people in rural districts hear so they don't know what to believe anymore.

I like what Arundhati Roy said recently that the media was not a tool of neo-liberalists, but formed by the neo-liberalists themselves.

She points to examples in her recent book, "An Ordinary Person's Guide To Empire" where a bamboo forest was destroyed to employ 1000 persons and only short term, but took away the income of 300,000 Indian people who were using the forest for livelihoood with it's environmental degradation. [can give specifics if asked]

None of those people had a vote in the way the forest was used, it was used that way because the one way a global corporation made a quick buck, and the other way it sustained a large community indefinately [for thousands of years]

There are countless examples such as this.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Hey neighbour, I for one don't advocate installing any great leader and like normal every-day people, value things in the vein of "Security, A good educational system, jobs, lower taxes, Health care, secure retirement." The difference lies, primarily, in that I don't think I particularly deserve these things more than anybody else - I see these, among other things as rights, that we shouldn't have to look to a class of oppressors to secure for us!

Sure, you can harp on the way our leaders extend to us "the right to assemble, people have the vote, people have the right to free speech," but do we really need our rights to be granted? And when our rights our given from above, can't they as easily be taken? I don't know about you, but last time I was at an assembly which disagreed with our leaders, I ended up running from the cops as they assaulted my friends. Last I tried to exercize my freedom of expression, I found a media essentially monopolized by people who could care less about my expression (Or anyones), and I'm left with a piece of paper to put an "x" on? Gee, thanks.

[LSD]

When are you going to get it through your narrow minded pin head, that the MAJORITY of the people, both democrat and republican, and those in the middle, LOVE, ENJOY, ENDORSE, AND SUPPORT the system.

Which proves ...what?

When people are raised, socialized, and educated to believe that a system is "the best in the world", they do indeed grow up to support it.

So what?

People in Nazi Germany supported their system, people in Feudal England supported theirs. For hundreds of years people lived under far worse systems that capitalism and honestly believed that that system was the "best in the world". After all, it was the best system that they knew.

Likewise today, people genuinely do think that capitalism is serving their interests, but an appeal to popularity is not an argument. The real question is that given the fact that millions in the west and billions world-wide are not served by capitalism, why does it enjoy the kind of "support" you're talking about?

As when the Christian monarchs proclaimed that they had "devine right" to rule, so does the rulling class labour ceaselessly to maintain the illusion that capitalism is actually bennefiting someone other than themselves.

Propaganda isn't proof.


So in other words, why don't you take your tired rhetoric, Fuck off, and head towards the 3rd world. You might be able to re-convert some back sliding marxists,

Why?

I thought capitalism was "serving" them so well?

You'd think that after 20 years of neo-liberal interventionism they'd be convinced of capitalism!

I'm sure their lives are idylic paradises now, right?

NO!?!? ...hmmm, what does that say...


you're pissing up a very tall tree here, and it's not a very impressive display. You're getting more on your hands, than you are on the tree....

You know urophilia is recognized by the DSM as a legitimate paraphilia.

Don't feel ashamed to see a therapist about this.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The vote has power?


Yup. Want evidence? Look at how much what YOU consider 'the powerful elite' spend to influence... THE VOTE.



Since when?


Since always... in our nation.



Sure, it has the power to choose between Democans and Republicrats, but so what?


Actually... the power goes MUCH farther than that.



Ideologically, they are indistinguishable.


Only because you are so fart o the left that relatively speaking they would be.



Besides... it's up to the voter to exercise personal responsibility in educating THEMSELVES to candidates and their positions so they can make an EDUCATED vote.



Money and power have the ability to influence the vote, even you of all people cannot deny that.


Oh.. INFLUENCE! I get it... the people have forfeited their power and responsibility and you blame MONEY for it instead of the voters. Why am I not surprised?

In other words... by admiting that what YOU consider to be the elites only have INFLUENCE, your other absolutes like "impossible" and other such bullshit is... just



The manifest idiocy of your statement is clear


Only to someone who continues to ignore the facts and logic of the situation.


OK... that's enough brick texture imprinted on my forehead for one evening.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 04:06 PM
So what do you make of the vote in Florida when Bush got elected?
It was all about oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil ™ !

Sorry, wrong topic.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 12:50 AM
Our "rights and freedoms" are subject to the whims of the wealthy elite.
And you want them put into who's hands ?

[Professor Moneybags]

When people are raised, socialized, and educated to believe that a system is "the best in the world", they do indeed grow up to support it.

So how did you slip through the net ?


Likewise today, people genuinely do think that capitalism is serving their interests, but an appeal to popularity is not an argument. The real question is that given the fact that millions in the west and billions world-wide are not served by capitalism, why does it enjoy the kind of "support" you're talking about?

"an appeal to popularity is not an argument"

"millions in the west and billions world-wide are not served by capitalism"

Sorry, what were you saying ?


Why?

I thought capitalism was "serving" them so well?

It's about time these games were brought to an end. Can we have a definitive definition of capitalism/socialism/communism please ?

[DaCuBaN]

not without using an appeal to popularity....
Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)
Capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)
Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)

This is the pain of being human, in that definition is subjective. I'm willing to bet that everyone will find something they don't believe/disagree with in one of the above: Including my calling of subjectivity.

[LSD]

"an appeal to popularity is not an argument"

"millions in the west and billions world-wide are not served by capitalism"

Sorry, what were you saying ?

That's not an appeal to popularity, that's proving by example. There's a difference.

Showing that billions are not served by a system demonstrates that it is a system which is not serving billions of people. Logic.

Arguing that a system is serving the people because they like that system ...proves nothing.

You have to actually demonstrate that it is serving their interests, not that it is POPULAR.

"When are you going to get it through your narrow minded pin head, that the MAJORITY of the people, both democrat and republican, and those in the middle, LOVE, ENJOY, ENDORSE, AND SUPPORT the system." <----- Appeal to Popularity

[STI]

When are you going to get it through your narrow minded pin head, that the MAJORITY of the people, both democrat and republican, and those in the middle, LOVE, ENJOY, ENDORSE, AND SUPPORT the system. We, that is, both liberals and conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans, and the few odd Libertarians, have surrounded the middle.

Ahhhhhhh FREAK OUT&#33;

Insulting us and then repeating yourself (*again*) doesn&#39;t make you right, sorry.


Only fringe wacko lunatics like you, peeping from the outside in, can perceive our system as you do. It&#39;s a fucking shame that your perspective is somewhat akin to a visitor from Alpha Centauri, observing from an upper solar orbit. Get you some sunblock, and get under the shade. The sun is starting to melt your brain.

See above.


So in other words, why don&#39;t you take your tired rhetoric, Fuck off, and head towards the 3rd world. You might be able to re-convert some back sliding marxists, but you&#39;re pissing up a very tall tree here, and it&#39;s not a very impressive display. You&#39;re getting more on your hands, than you are on the tree....

You, sir, are a fucking moron.


It was all about oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil ™ &#33;

Sorry, wrong topic.

See above.


And you want them put into who&#39;s hands ?

Guess.

NO, not "the state" or "the party". Guess agan.


So how did you slip through the net ?

It makes sense that this happens. It happened with fuedalism (only they had the argument of "god" on their side). When a system sucks enough, people will start to reject it, regardless of what they&#39;re "taught".

We&#39;ve just rejected it befoer some others (and after others, for that matter).

Don&#39;t be stupid.

*Edited out the beginning of the quote-tag at the bottom of the message. No need for that stuff.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
When are you going to get it through your narrow minded pin head, that the MAJORITY of the people, both democrat and republican, and those in the middle, LOVE, ENJOY, ENDORSE, AND SUPPORT the system. We, that is, both liberals and conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans, and the few odd Libertarians, have surrounded the middle.

Around 1830 or so, much the same could have been said about the system of slavery that was then the foundation of the American economy.

Then, um...people changed their minds. :D

Your cockiness is not justified by history. If you really were a "capitalist lawyer", then you&#39;d be aware of their most common complaint: "you just never know how a jury will decide."


Only fringe wacko lunatics like you, peeping from the outside in, can perceive our system as you do.

If we were always to be doomed to that unhappy position, then what would be the point of contesting our views?

It&#39;s pretty clear what worries you; if we keep plugging away, the time may come when your "happy majority" could melt away like a spring snowfall...and then where would you be?

Between a rock and a hard place? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Which proves ...what?


So, you are opposed to democracy? If the majority of Americans support their system, you think it should be changed against their will? And don&#39;t try your tired slavery analogy...slaves couldn&#39;t vote. Today, the voting franchise is open to everyone. Americans, you say, support their system because they&#39;ve been "indoctrinated" and they don&#39;t know any better. What knowledge, exactly, has been hidden from us? What political or economic system are we forbidden from studying?

I will again point out the simple idea that when your viewpoints are not shared by many others, its NOT because the majority of people have been "indoctrinated" or they have not been permitted to look at alternatives. Its because they have chosen to ignore you and your viewpoint. Chosen. Not coerced. Not forced. Not forbidden from reading or studying. Marx, socialism, etc. are all out there for anyone who wants to read them. Candidates who support these ideas are right there on the ballot along with the Dems and Repubs for anyone who wants to vote for them.

You can&#39;t seem to accept the fact that people are simpling ignoring you. You want to maintain the fantasy that your ideology is somehow a &#39;victim&#39; of oppression and censorship.

As for the billions around the world who are not served by capatalism, I&#39;d suggest they try it and see how their standard of living improves. Ask the folks in South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and even China if they are better off today with capitalist economies (well, China&#39;s getting there) than they were before. Living standards, nutrition, health, life expectancy, infant mortality rates have all improved in those countries as they have embraced capitalism.

[LSD]

So, you are opposed to democracy? If the majority of Americans support their system, you think it should be changed against their will?

Yes&#33; the people should be forced to popularly revolt&#33;....wait a minute...


And don&#39;t try your tired slavery analogy...slaves couldn&#39;t vote. Today, the voting franchise is open to everyone.

Yes, but have you noticed how few take advantage of this?

Could it be perhaps because they don&#39;t see the point?

You argue that politicians are so similar because it&#39;s "what people want", but if people wanted it, they&#39;d vote.

They don&#39;t "want" it, they accept it. They don&#39;t see a better option. They&#39;ve been trained to believe that the only options they have are what are on the ballot, and even then trained that only some of those options are actually real options.


Americans, you say, support their system because they&#39;ve been "indoctrinated" and they don&#39;t know any better. What knowledge, exactly, has been hidden from us? What political or economic system are we forbidden from studying?

Oh come on&#33;

How many people actively seek out political theory or economic literature? It&#39;s "hidden" because it&#39;s suppressed and derided. Since it is not in the economic interests of those who control the means of distribtution, communist literature is, well....not seen much.

But, it&#39;s still out there&#33;&#33;&#33;

Sure it is, but if you&#39;ve been educated to believe that communism is evil and capitalism is equivilent to all that&#39;s "good and right" in the world, you aren&#39;t liable to read it.


CL, your position is fundamentally ludicrous. Capitalism works because people believe it works.

It took 5000 years to eliminate slavery, it took 500 to eliminate feudalism.

In all that time, people believed in whatver system they were living under.

They thought it "worked".

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

0
0

[Osman Ghazi]

When are you going to get it through your narrow minded pin head, that the MAJORITY of the people, both democrat and republican, and those in the middle, LOVE, ENJOY, ENDORSE, AND SUPPORT the system.

CL, the overwhelming majority of Americans DON&#39;T VOTE&#33; So how can they possibly support the system? 50% of the American population hasn&#39;t voted in decades. and of course, there isn&#39;t any reason to anyways, because of the undemocratic electoral college system.

I mean, about half the states are going to vote a certain way anyways. so, if you support the obvious winners, they&#39;re going to win with or without your vote. And if you support the other side, well, they&#39;re going to lose with or without your vote. And the winner gets every EC vote from the state, so there isn&#39;t any point to voting.

[New Tolerance]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2004, 03:49 PM
I came across this question on another thread in another section but since I&#39;m a "restricted member" I can&#39;t possibly respond to it, so here you go. I think it was redstar2000 who proposed this question.





When the corporations actually have the ability to take away the power of the vote, then you MIGHT have a point. Until then... all the money and power in the world doesn&#39;t hold a candle to the vote, and that rests with the people. If they choose not to exercise it, that is one thing... but the power still rests with the people.
Well, let&#39;s take a look:

Here&#39;s a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which may still need to be perfected, but anyways:)

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Wage-slavery debate is still open.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


The sweatshop debate is also still open.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.


Read the part about "equal pay for equal work"...

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Once again, the sweatshop debate is still open.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.


Read the part that says: "education shall be free", do I have to tell you how this relates to privatization and corporations? Now, when it says it is "free" it means that education shall be granted to everyone, this leads to the debate about whether if privatized education guarantees education to everyone better than public education. Now, taxes are progressive, and they make up a &#39;percentage&#39; of your commerical transactions, which means even if you have no money, you can still send your kids to school. Where as in a private system, you have to pay a set amount, which means that it is possible for some people to not have the ability to send their children to school... need I go on to explain the rest?

[Professor Moneybags]

Here&#39;s a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

This is an appeal to authority. Just because the UN have declared something is a "right" doesn&#39;t make it so.


(which may still need to be perfected, but anyways:)

Totally rewritten, you mean.


Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Wage-slavery debate is still open.

Ignoring the self-contradiction that is "wage-slavery", the UN has no problem with allowing membership of countries who endorse actual slavery.


Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


The sweatshop debate is also still open.

See above.


Read the part that says: "education shall be free", do I have to tell you how this relates to privatization and corporations? Now, when it says it is "free" it means that education shall be granted to everyone, this leads to the debate about whether if privatized education guarantees education to everyone better than public education. Now, taxes are progressive, and they make up a &#39;percentage&#39; of your commerical transactions, which means even if you have no money, you can still send your kids to school. Where as in a private system, you have to pay a set amount, which means that it is possible for some people to not have the ability to send their children to school... need I go on to explain the rest?

I&#39;d just like to point out the contradiction to being entitled to "free eductation", presumably from someone capable of teaching, and "no one shall be held in slavery or servitude". If teachers have to provide education free of charge, enforced by law, then what does that make them ?

Clue : It begins with "S" and rhymes with "graves".

It&#39;s documents like this that drag the UN&#39;s coercive aspirations crudely out into the open.

[LSD]

It&#39;s documents like this that drag the UN&#39;s coercive aspirations crudely out into the open.

What is that your "word of the day"?

Let&#39;s just define it and clear everything up:
"To contrain or restrain by the application of superior force, or by the authority resting on force; to constrain to complience or obedience by forcible means".


I&#39;d just like to point out the contradiction to being entitled to "free eductation", presumably from someone capable of teaching, and "no one shall be held in slavery or servitude". If teachers have to provide education free of charge, enforced by law, then what does that make them ?

um....we&#39;re waiting...

POINT IT OUT&#33; Because no one but you sees it.

If teachers have to work because they "need the money" (capitalist society) or because they must choose some productive work and they happen to love teaching (communist society)...both ways their coerced into working.

Under capitalism, teachers are compelled to work or they starve&#33; If they don&#39;t work they don&#39;t "get paid" and they don&#39;t eat. Sure the threat is externalized as "market forces", but what it really means is that if you don&#39;t teach, the store won&#39;t give you food and you starve.

It&#39;s coercive.


Clue : It begins with "S" and rhymes with "graves".

Sprave? Stave? Smave?

Sorry...I give up... :(

[Professor Moneybags]

Let&#39;s just define it and clear everything up:
"To contrain or restrain by the application of superior force, or by the authority resting on force; to constrain to complience or obedience by forcible means".

That&#39;s precisely what it is.


POINT IT OUT&#33; Because no one but you sees it.

Or no one but me acknowledges it ? Nice attempt at pulling the ad populum.


If teachers have to work because they "need the money" (capitalist society) or because they must choose some productive work and they happen to love teaching (communist society)...both ways their coerced into working.

So now you are admitting that they will be coerced ?


Under capitalism, teachers are compelled to work or they starve&#33; If they don&#39;t work they don&#39;t "get paid" and they don&#39;t eat. Sure the threat is externalized as "market forces", but what it really means is that if you don&#39;t teach, the store won&#39;t give you food and you starve.

What you fear is called reality; productive effort is needed in order to sustain one&#39;s life (it is absurd to speak of this as coercive, just as it absurd to talk of gravity as coercive. Denounce it all you like- all the revolutions in the world aren&#39;t going to make it go away). If someone doesn&#39;t provide that productive effort for themselves, someone else must do it for them. The rest you can work out for yourself.

[LSD]

So now you are admitting that they will be coerced ?

I never denied it.

It&#39;s you who imagines that they&#39;re working "freely". Of course they&#39;re coerced to work, that&#39;s why they&#39;re working&#33; You have this bizzarrre view of capitalism in which they&#39;re working for the fun of it. They are forced to work on the threat of starvation, homelessness, lack of healthcare etc...


What you fear is called reality; productive effort is needed in order to sustain one&#39;s life (it is absurd to speak of this as coercive, just as it absurd to talk of gravity as coercive. Denounce it all you like- all the revolutions in the world aren&#39;t going to make it go away).

umm..teaching does not "sustain one&#39;s life", food does. Capitalist society withholds that food unless the teacher teaches. That is what is coercive.


If someone doesn&#39;t provide that productive effort for themselves, someone else must do it for them.

Where are we disagreeing here?

Yes, capitalism forces people to labour for the bennefit of others.

What&#39;s your point?

[New Tolerance]

This is an appeal to authority. Just because the UN have declared something is a "right" doesn&#39;t make it so.

The question was: "What RIGHTS do the corporations violate?" (what better way to answer this question other than by actually bring up a declaration of rights?)

And when I actually bring up a creditable declaration of rights and talk about it, you say: &#39;no, don&#39;t do that.&#39;

What the heck is going on here?


Totally rewritten, you mean.

I&#39;m curious, how would you rewrite it?


Ignoring the self-contradiction that is "wage-slavery", the UN has no problem with allowing membership of countries who endorse actual slavery.

The UN has no problem with slavery? Evidence?


See above.

See above.


I&#39;d just like to point out the contradiction to being entitled to "free eductation", presumably from someone capable of teaching, and "no one shall be held in slavery or servitude". If teachers have to provide education free of charge, enforced by law, then what does that make them ?

Clue : It begins with "S" and rhymes with "graves".

It&#39;s documents like this that drag the UN&#39;s coercive aspirations crudely out into the open.

Did you completely skip over about what I said about "free" meaning "guaranteed regardless of economic status"?

and where does it say that the teachers shall not be paid?

[Osman Ghazi]

This is an appeal to authority.


An organization that strives, or appears to strive (or strives to appear) to represent the entire world has about a million times the legitimacy that you do.


Just because the UN have declared something is a "right" doesn&#39;t make it so.

But when professor moneybags proclaims something to be a right, it does amke it so?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 15 2004, 12:22 AM
An organization that strives, or appears to strive (or strives to appear) to represent the entire world has about a million times the legitimacy that you do.




So the church, with it&#39;s flat earth dogma, had more legitimacy that the man who said the earth was round ?


But when professor moneybags proclaims something to be a right, it does amke it so?

Debating with you is a waste of time.

[LSD]

So the church, with it&#39;s flat earth dogma, had more legitimacy that the man who said the earth was round ?

Actually, the church never made this claim.

The world was discovered to be round long before the founding of Christianity.

[Professor Moneybags]

The question was: "What RIGHTS do the corporations violate?" (what better way to answer this question other than by actually bring up a declaration of rights?)


I&#39;m curious, how would you rewrite it?

I see little point doing this, because it will contain no positive rights and thus you will not agree with it.

If I did cut out all the fluff about positive rights, there would be nothing left.


The UN has no problem with slavery? Evidence?

I&#39;m not explaining this again.


Did you completely skip over about what I said about "free" meaning "guaranteed regardless of economic status"?
and where does it say that the teachers shall not be paid?

You really don&#39;t get it do you ? If something is "guaranteed regardless of economic status" then people with no money can obtain it too. In other words, the teacher doesn&#39;t get paid. The only other alternative is to force the taxpayer to pay for the teacher&#39;s services, which they have no choice over. I&#39;ve pretty much spelled out the immorality of taxation during my time here.

[Seraph]

This so called democracy needs some serious work. When powerful corporate lobbyist can funnel millions of dollars to govt. officials, how much does the vote count? Corporations put up tons of money in campaign contributions. Wonder who they&#39;ll be more faithful to. The people, or their bread and butter?

We had a president who bit the hands that fed him, JFK and you see what they did to him

[DaCuBaN]

Y&#39;know, I&#39;ve always had the tin-foil hat out for the same kind of reasons in regards to clinton... ;) Not that he nor JFK were exactly wonderful, but call it a gut feeling <_<

[STI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 01:29 PM
This so called democracy needs some serious work. When powerful corporate lobbyist can funnel millions of dollars to govt. officials, how much does the vote count? Corporations put up tons of money in campaign contributions. Wonder who they&#39;ll be more faithful to. The people, or their bread and butter?

We had a president who bit the hands that fed him, JFK and you see what they did to him
Your faith in the electoral system is troubling.

Let&#39;s assume, for the sake of discussion, that JFK really was a "good man" who "stood up to corporations" and whatnot. The fact that he was offed (by, as you say, the rich folks), demonstrates how peace is simply an inneffective method of changing capitalism. The bourgeoisie will never give up their wealth without a life-or-death struggle.

[NovelGentry]

While JFK was offed by the bourgeoisie he was offed by them because he threatened them.... not as a person who fought for the proletariat, but as a person who fought for himself and his own individual desires. He&#39;s no good for making an argument that reform doesn&#39;t work, the reform he tried was just as self-righteous as any other bourgeoisie reform. He just pissed off the wrong members of the bourgeoisie at the wrong time.

[New Tolerance]

I see little point doing this, because it will contain no positive rights and thus you will not agree with it.

If I did cut out all the fluff about positive rights, there would be nothing left.

I hope you write one anyways, the point is not so that I would agree with it, the point is so that I would see if the rights are consistent.


I&#39;m not explaining this again.

As I expected... hehe

The point is: the question asked what rights are being violated, and I listed them. Whether if the institutions that are supposed to enforce those rights are actually doing the enforcing has nothing to do with whether if the rights themselves are moral or not. The lack of response from the UN to stop slavery in someplaces is not caused by this declaration of rights. So what you were talking about, doesn&#39;t really have anything to do with what I was talking about. (so yeh, no further explanation is required)


You really don&#39;t get it do you ? If something is "guaranteed regardless of economic status" then people with no money can obtain it too. In other words, the teacher doesn&#39;t get paid. The only other alternative is to force the taxpayer to pay for the teacher&#39;s services, which they have no choice over. I&#39;ve pretty much spelled out the immorality of taxation during my time here.

Taxation was the kind of payment that I was talking about. And I would like to see this "spelling out of the immorality of taxation" that you are talking about, then we can talk about that.

[POFO_Communist]

I just got here and I&#39;m already starting to find this &#39;Capitalist Lawyer&#39; character somewhat irritating. <_<

[FuckWar]

What stops people from voting third party and making a difference and also what gives corporations absolute power is their complete control over our mindscapes. Television and newspapers and everything else all put out a constant message all election season long -"what will you vote?- democrat or republican?" I bet that many people cannot name more than two or three third parties or their candidates, never mind where they stand on issues.

And hey, whatever happened to issues? Our candidates spend debates talking about god. God? Since when is that supposed to have ANY bearing on amerikan politics? I learned in high school that the answer was "never". Nobody adresses a single important issue- its all "i would send this much money and this many more soldiers to Iraq"-"oh yeah- well i would send even MORE&#33;&#33;" so on and so forth. But big business buys time to argue out little kinks like exactly how much of healthcare will be privatized or how many terrorists might be getting into our country or how to deport the most people the fastest.

Power of the vote?- Not when the person casting the vote has an opinion molded by billions of dollars in advertising.

[M.I.G.]

wow. this " capitalist lawyer" is annoying.

[Marvs Cicero]

It&#39;s not his fault you can&#39;t defeat his arguments.

[gaf]

Originally posted by Marvs [email protected] 20 2004, 07:45 PM
It&#39;s not his fault you can&#39;t defeat his arguments.
he who votes see only result in the freedom he has to spend his monney
the one who get the votes will then get more... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[DReaver13]

Does Capitalist Lawyer not realise that "democracy" IS communism. When everyone has a "say" in the running of the country. That would be communism that he wishes for. The rule of all, rather than that of a few (as currently).

In "capitalism" the country simply isn&#39;t run. Everyone has to fend for themselves and try to get money from wherever they can, working or otherwise, since EVERYTHING would be privatized. Every single thing would be owned by someone. Roads, water, power, the internet, grass. The police would be a hired bunch of bodyguards. At least capitalism hasn&#39;t become "capitalism" yet.

America is neither capitalist nor <insert left-wing system here>. It has left wing policies that resemble dictatorships and socialism.. such as free education (through taxes), as well as right wing policies, i.e. anything being "owned".

People would have to gain a considerable understanding of &#39;how things work&#39; under laissez-faire capitalism, on their own. No support and no encouragement to achieve anything besides their own.

Anyway I&#39;m tired... that .. *might* make sense&#33; :unsure:

[Felicia]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 11 2004, 12:49 PM
I came across this question on another thread in another section but since I&#39;m a "restricted member" I can&#39;t possibly respond to it, so here you go. I think it was redstar2000 who proposed this question.





When the corporations actually have the ability to take away the power of the vote, then you MIGHT have a point. Until then... all the money and power in the world doesn&#39;t hold a candle to the vote, and that rests with the people. If they choose not to exercise it, that is one thing... but the power still rests with the people.
right on ma brotha&#33;

There&#39;s nothing like a two party system where you can vote for man A, supoprted by huge corporations or man B, also supported by big businesses..........


hmm, what was that about corporations and our votes?

the corps support man A or B, then man A OorB gets out vote, and then the corperations get lots of treats from man A or B, depending on who gets our votes.... So, really, in a capitalist society, the corperations are behind their cadidates, I don&#39;t care what anyone says. There aren&#39;t many parties that don&#39;t have corperations with alterior motives behind them...

anyway, my two cents.... they can&#39;t take your vote away, but they control who you vote for :P

[Nyder]

I agree, &#39;individual rights&#39; has nothing to do with &#39;voting&#39;. Individual rights means a person&#39;s right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Not the right to vote it all away.

State capitalism is all a big scam being run by corporations and powerful interests.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Crony Capitalism is the inevitable result, of, well, capitalism. Democracy becomes an entirely symbolic matter as economic, and thus socio-political power is concentrated in the hands of an elite not subject to any sort of democracy.

Another two cents worth . . .




P.S. Felicia, come visit me in Montreal. Now.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Virgin Molotov [email protected] 9 2004, 06:26 AM
economic, and thus socio-political power is concentrated in the hands of an elite not subject to any sort of democracy.
Then why isn&#39;t Bill Gates running the country ?

Obviously economic power does not equal politcal power in a country where economic activity and government activity are kept separate. Thanks to the progressive left, that separation is no longer in existence.

[gaf]

when you have enought monney in your bag you just dont need to fight for it......you are makin it(i&#39;m sure ibm is jealous)