Question on communism

[1936]

From my understanding, communism is where within the scoeity all our seen equal, basicly.

Jobs are distributed by ability and effincy. And recources are distributed by need.

By the state, and so therfor all business goes through the state.

But in communism there is may well be equality on a economic scale, but from the point of authority, how do you establish wich individuals are above others on a scale of authority and who decides the limits of there authority?

Who decides what job i do, and how much i get for doing it? how is it established fairly and unbiasley what my needs are, considering the needs of all are differnt and individual from the man beside me.

And surely equality will never be acomplished if men have power over it, because surely what man would not grab at the chance of better quality of life when offerd the power to do so?

Surely from the anaylis of this, communism is a short progression stage, to a manifested anorchism, in a way. In wich there is no SINGLE authartarian group rather then a society in wich the proletarians as such control themselves efficently and equally as a society. But anorchism is not without flaw either, for time is wasted if every infringment upon society has to be dealt with by such a large amount of people with equal authority within dealing with the problem.

And to all socialists, anorchists, communists. The major flaw with it all is surely the fact that where is the insesive? If i go to work under capatilsm where by being more productive i benefit from it, rather then gaining a fixed amount however hard you work?

In light of these problems, one thinks of neo-liberalsm and capatilsm as the ideology, but this is FAR from true, as i would much rather society collapsing under communism then another 10 years under the system of wich the world is suffering now.

So surely there is no "flawless" ideolgy....as of yet.

The solution is not one of these, but a mix. So far i have drafted a society more efficent then all of those mentioned so far.

1) Military actions are dealt with by militant authoratarians, but these people will have no dealings in civillian affairs and no power over economic dealings.

2) Everyman is free to do whatever it is he wants, UNTIL hes actions effect directly and negatively the living qualities of others, therefor drugs would be ok, until per say pregnancy, in wich you are effecting the feotus.

3) Every man is given what he needs, but by working productively there are minor benefits, per say slightly more food if avaliable without someone else having to go without. The needs include food, water, clothing, housing etc. Everyman is givin the exact same basic needs.

4) When the lives of others are effected by the actions of some, "crime" the decision of punishment is dealt with by a group of society approved authoratarians, whose power extends only to crimes and nothing else. They are elected regulary, and the proletarian majority has the power to over throw them at choice. If in the majority.


This is how i would run society, and although to ruin the serious nature of my post, i shall name it elmo-ism.

Please feel free to critise, my ideas are subject to change when it could improve the system.

[Redmau5]

My friend, there is no difference between anarchism and communism in terms of the end product. Both entail stateless societies with communes running things for themselves. The difference between the two lies in how to achieve the end product. Communists advocate a revolution, followed by a period of socialism. This socialist period requires a state run by the workers, or a"dictatorship of the proletariat", in which anti-socialist and reactionary elements are weeded out of society. Once people have been educated in socialism and the counter-revolutionary forces have been successfully dealt with, the need for the state gradually decreases, until it finally withers away. Workers in the communes or soviets will run things for themselves, and if any further counter-revolutionaries arise, the workers will organise into effective defensive militia's to suppress the reactionary element.

Anarchists on the other hand, believe the state will collapse and workers will magically discipline themselves and organise into communes at the drop of a hat. They do not believe in a period of socialism because "power corrupts".

[1936]

Where is the relavancey in that post? I gave the reasons why communism wouldnt work efficently if it was run under its present theories, i didnt ask for a definition.

[Brennus]

Surely from the anaylis of this, communism is a short progression stage, to a manifested anorchism

As Makaveli_05 said, the concepts of communism and anarchism are the same.


And to all socialists, anorchists, communists. The major flaw with it all is surely the fact that where is the insesive? If i go to work under capatilsm where by being more productive i benefit from it, rather then gaining a fixed amount however hard you work?

Actually, in a capitalist society, working more won't give you more money necessarily. Your boss would just take the profits, although he might give you a pay raise of a dollar or two. In a communist society there is an incentive to work harder to benefit oneself without having to worry about someone else taking the fruits of your labor.


2) Everyman is free to do whatever it is he wants, UNTIL hes actions effect directly and negatively the living qualities of others, therefor drugs would be ok, until per say pregnancy, in wich you are effecting the feotus.

That's the best idea in your post.

In response to numbers 1 and 4, if such people had ultimate power over the military and criminal systems, they would be able to use this power to arrest their enemies, because they make the laws, no?

[1936]

They would not have the authority to change the laws to convict there enemies, if they accuse enemies through personal grievencess then they shall be relieved of there position as authoratarian.

Anorchism is differnt to communism, as on the scale of the fact of authority distrabutions, one has to much and the other hasnt enough.

In communism you get a fixed amount according to your needs, but im elmoism you can get more when working harder, but only if there is enough once all have had what they need to be at the balance of "satisfactory quality of life"

And in capatilsm, something is dangled infront of you and you jump for it, i didnt say it was given to you i said the offer of more makes you jump higher, but in elmoism, it shant be offerd and not given.

[Livetrueordie]

Who decides what job i do, and how much i get for doing it?
You get everything you need, no such thing as money, u decide what to do.


how do you establish wich individuals are above others on a scale of authority and who decides the limits of there authority You don't have authority, rather democratic authority.


And to all socialists, anorchists, communists. The major flaw with it all is surely the fact that where is the insesive? If i go to work under capatilsm where by being more productive i benefit from it, rather then gaining a fixed amount however hard you work? The incentive is all the same. If its a job with a lot of training such as a doctor some say its worth more, but while the doctors are being trained that is essentially there job(Training to become a doctor, not juggling another job with it) they're provided for just like everyone else until they can become a real benefit to society. Now they have the same worth as any other person.


So surely there is no "flawless" ideolgy....as of yet.
agreed

[NovelGentry]

he might give you a pay raise of a dollar or two.

Raises of a dollar or two? Where the hell do yo work? I'm gonna get a job there!


In communism you get a fixed amount according to your needs, but im elmoism you can get more when working harder, but only if there is enough once all have had what they need to be at the balance of "satisfactory quality of life"

Where do you see in communism that this is the case. The understanding of "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need." Is fairly well understood that need encompasses the mass of the products created by society -- including things that aren't actually NEEDED, and thus includes something of a desire. For example, theoretically no one NEEDS a computer (unless it's regulating their hearbeat or something). But with relevance to the type of technologically advanced society we are, a) it would be ludacris for someone not to have one and thus it is something of a need that is relative to that society. As such, ALL products would exist in this fashion, EXCEPT what you took the time to actually make for yourself.

I pull away from saying "need and desire" -- only because it is still in essence *need* but it is need relative and in light of what society has progressed. In fact, the word desire or want alone already gives off a feel that it's outside the realm of existence. That is to say if you WANT e-mail you NEED a computer. If you WANT a computer you NEED the means to create one.

Existence alone entails that something can be needed, as it's purpose for existing solves some sort of problem. The task at hand is thus always resolved with a need. -- the quesiton is then of course, is the task at hand necessary? To my knowledge Marx never makes much of a point about that. One can only presume so far as to say that Marx was implying that the needs for the tasks at hand be fulfilled. The task may not always be survival and thus it is not always a difinitive need.

[Freidenker]

Anarchists on the other hand, believe the state will collapse and workers will magically discipline themselves and organise into communes at the drop of a hat. They do not believe in a period of socialism because "power corrupts".

:lol:

[1936]

What would happen under USSR rule if i wanted a computer. How would i go about it?

[NovelGentry]

"Under USSR rule"... well what do you mean? If you were in the USSR when it was still the USSR? I would suspect you would never get one, no matter who you requested it from. The USSR was a massive state struggling with growing itself into an industrial powerhouse in order for a) defense against capitalist nations b) improvement in the conditions of working class people through industrial advancement and c) to strengthen the state itself in the global sphere.

However, the USSR, as you should know by now, was not communist. Nor would a post-industrialization USSR probably have looked anything like a pre-industrialization USSR. If indeed you were living in a post-industrialized USSR with all the advancements we've seen through capitalism, including widespread computer access. My guess is that you would be given one by the government -- If over time the one you had was not suitable (depending on how drastically the system changed) you could probably acquire one internally within a distribution center using your "pay", again, possibly be provided with a newer one by the government, or even be granted one as a reward of sorts for hard work.

It really all depends how much the system progresses materially and how much the system needs to progress materially. Had there been no push to Industrialize the USSR, it's questionable whether or not it would have lasted as long as it did. Had industrialization been completed, and when computer technology advanced to the point where it was feasible in the home, I could imagine the USSR looking very much like a normalized strong democratic and socialist system.

You can't really guage the answer though, as the reason the USSR was the way it had to be was quite frankly, because it had to be.

EDIT: I changed democratic socialist above to democratic and socialist to avoid confusion with the term "democratic socialist" which has been liberalized.

[1936]

So if you work for your goods, to wich will be called "pay". And you choose to a certain extent how your "pay" is allocated for the goods you choose you need. Is this the abolishment of currency atall???

[NovelGentry]

Well you asked under the USSR. On a good day in a theoretical post-industrialized USSR would be called socialist. Not Communist. You cannot have a communist state, it's against the definition of what communism is and it doesn't coincide with the possibility of other nation-states existing to oppress it. If you attempted some sort of non-global communism, you may be able to say you actually achieved it, but it would not last for very long -- it would have to be 100% isolated... and with that said, it'd be greatly underresourced with certain materials that could not be acquired locally. It's a broken model... communism has to be global because communism by definition is stateless.

So as far as the "pay" -- that was in reference to socialism. I'm not aware of anyone who talks about abolition of this at any point in socialism.

[1936]

Sorry, i kind of messed up what i was asking.

To the best of my knowledge the USSR was socialist BUT socialsm was going to be a proggresion stage to communism, but the USSR disbanded before communism could be achieved.

My question was meant to ask. If we were under a similar system of how things are dealt with to the USSR (in this proggresion stage). When would currency be abolished to get to communism. And then how would you know of how goods are to be distributed (like computers).

[NovelGentry]

To the best of my knowledge the USSR was socialist

I would not consider the USSR to have ever been socialist. Not realistically socialist anyway, and not by action of the state. If there was ever a socialist aspect to the USSR it was born of the workers and regardless of the state. As the USSR itself, as a state, I would considered it to have progressed from regulated capitalism -> state capitalism -> <god only knows what to call it>


socialsm was going to be a proggresion stage to communism

That&#39;s the idea behind it.


but the USSR disbanded before communism could be achieved.

The USSR disbanded before socialism could be achieved. Socialism is NOT just a term that is used for any period between revolution and communism. It is a difinitive socio-economic system, just as communism is, that is marked with workers democracy and a socialized production/consumption.

You can indeed have a state to represent the workers and maintain socialized production and consumption through the state which is in turn a representative democratic or direct democratic system incorporating all the workers.

The USSR, however, never really pulled this off. There were certain aspects of all this here, but in the end production/distribution was primarily state controlled, and the state was primarily a limited bureacracy, while possibly having some representation of lower level soviets, it maintained itself as an alienated body from the whole of the working class. In doing so, the state itself was outside of total working class control -- furthermore, as much as the state may have attempted to create worker welfare, that is to supply the workers with what is needed, they did so very much on the order of capitalism.

Much like you can have a giant welfare state where workers get a living wage, healthcare, possibly even government paid food and shelter... but it is still built on the capitalist mode of production. That is to say, it generates capital. That is to further say, the labor of the workers seeks to generate more wealth, which in turn is capital which seeks to generate more wealth and so on and so on. The workers would never directly see the benefits of their production under the USSR, and a certain amount of that labor was taken from them to sustain trade with other nations -- even if these workers benefitted from it in the end, it is still a capitalist mode of production.


If we were under a similar system of how things are dealt with to the USSR (in this proggresion stage). When would currency be abolished to get to communism. And then how would you know of how goods are to be distributed (like computers).

What you don&#39;t seem to understand is that the nature of the USSR is not specifically determined by the socialist ideologies of it&#39;s leaders or even the party. It&#39;s more 3 parts materialism, 1 part whim. That is to say it is the whim of the party and the leaders that the USSR progress towards communism and avoid the detriments of capitalism outside of their control.

However, the form it takes in itself is really based 100% on material conditions. The fact that the USSR needed to industrialize to secure itself is not something Stalin, Ghandi, or Jesus himself could have avoided. It was the reality of the situation.

When currency can be abolished is 100% dependent on when these material conditions have truly outgrown every earlier system. This means, scarcity of necessities DOES not exist, oversupply and overproduction are frequent, we no longer have any need for a "price" and thus supply and demand market dynamic.

You could of course bypass the supply and demand market dynamic with total authoritarian control. That is, the state determines what you need, and the state forces people to work based on what the needs of society is. Thereby abolishing the need for money nearly immediately.

What this does not get you is automatic feasible amterial conditions. You can technically force a lot of stuff on to people and do away with much of what resembles capitalism. But to make society sustainable without that you HAVE to achieve certain material conditions. These can only be acheived through advanced industrialization, rapid development in technology and the means of production, etc.. which are essentially NAUTRALLY found in capitalism.

The reason you cannot bypass capitalism is because capitalism, no matter what form it takes, free market, regulated, or state, is what does this. Capital begets capital. That is essentially the rule which determines capitalism, and the capital that forms from the existing capital creates EVEN MORE capital. This is preciely how such rapid development and improvement can occur.

In order to progress society this way, a certain amount of worker&#39;s products and thus a certain amount of workers themselves, has to be devoted to increasing and advancing the means of production themselves.

Assume for a minute no one actually worked on the means of production themselves. That is, no one build any factories, no one build machines to do things faster, etc..etc. Society would not progress. It would remain static. We would have enough machines and means of production to sustain a certain population and that is that. We would never have new technology -- we would simply stagnate, supplying only what we need to survive, and not actually move forward.

Thankfully, humans don&#39;t really work like this and we seem to naturally seek better ways to do things, thus progressing society throughout it&#39;s history. Capitalism, however, seeks to make that progression the means by which someone advances socially. Under feudalism you&#39;re born into nobility, under capitalism (supposedly) the harder you work the higher you go. You COULD work 18 hours a day, save every damn dime, and become stinking rich. I wouldn&#39;t really call what you&#39;re doing *living* but you could technically do it. The idea is of course, once you do it, you "invest" -- that is to say, a portion of your money no longer goes toward strictly sustaining you, but towards the whole purpose of creating more money. THIS is how capitalism does what it does... and this is how it advances... and this is how any society MUST advance through this given stage -- there is no avoiding it.

Money itself is an abstraction aspect, which is in essence required for freer and strictly free markets -- as there has to be a mode by which we can resolve acquiring both the products we need to survive and the products needed to be bought to produce more products, etc..etc.

So still, your question on how you would know how goods are distributed is confusing. How goods are distributed is not strictly dependent on the type of socio-economic system, but more strictly in the economic realm only. If you have a centralized and closed market, you can still have capitalism, and goods are 100% controlled and distributed by whoever closed the market (most likely the state). If you have a regulated market, again, you still have capitalism, and goods are partially controlled and distributed by free market and private companies, and partially controlled and distributed by the government (see: welfare states). Lastly, if you have a completely free market, goods are controlled and distributed strictly by the private business owners and controllers.

Again, a whole spectrum of capitalism.

Now, on the issue of socialism -- socialism is very much like capitalism and very much like communism -- in fact, it&#39;s something of a cross -- strange that the transitional phase would have attributes from both, no?

Socialism, like capitalism, looks not only to settle necessity, but advance the means of production, and advance society as a whole. In doing so you take the welfare aspects of regulated capitalism, apply it to a similar production method, and add in worker control. That is to say, the only major difference between socialism and regulated capitalism + welfare state, is that under socialism the means of production and distribution are controlled by the workers.

Whether or not the workers form a state or not is something of the determination of whether or not you&#39;re looking at the communist route, or the anarchist route. Indeed this argument would seem to support anarchists values, as it argues the workers control the production, and the state serves no real necessity. And if we lived in a completely isolated world, they might be right. The problem is of course that we don&#39;t live in an isolated world, and just because one place advances to a socialized production model, does not mean all places do. As such, the state is upheld to a) interact with other states (whether this means trade, moot diplomacy, or defense of our state from external threat) b) act as the administrative and general overseer.

Point B is interesting, because it really brings in the difference between anarchist and communist theory. If you look at it from an anarchist perspective, they feel the workers can directly keep track of all logistical information about production/consumption/etc -- which would be the case, but yet again, only if we were isolated. Thus, the state serves the workers, or should. It should keep track of this information and deal with other states to ensure we have resources we need etc... and it should consistently push to help socialism grow internationally.

I hope this clarifies the differences betwen the systems, and thus, makes you more aware of "how you tell where goods are distributed"

To summarize with the answer goods are distributed by the following entities within these forms of society:

Closed capitalism: The state
Regulated capitalism: The state and private business
Free market capitalims: private business
Socialism: Workers served by the administrative.
Communism: Workers served by nothing.

[1936]

But this would all be a problem with the way in which my origanal post on the flaws of communism, and not in which the way ive framed a alternative to all former left wing ideologies.

Hense i ask, is elmoism (the combination of socialsm, anorchism, capatilsm) more or less flawed then its predecessors?

[NovelGentry]

But this would all be a problem with the way in which my origanal post on the flaws of communism

Which is precisely why I ignored the vast majority of your first post. It&#39;s based on flawed understanding of what all these things are and how they work. As far as I&#39;m concerned, there is nothing that you pointed out in your first post that is a valid flaw, or even a point which is accurately accredited to communism.

For example you say: Jobs are distributed by ability and effincy.

Indeed, they are determined by ability. If you are not able to programmer, you will not be a programmer. But whether or not they are determined by efficiency is a question of whether you and fellow workers care whether you&#39;re efficient at what you do. If you&#39;re part of a programming team and it&#39;s decided you&#39;re going to program one aspect of the overall solution, and others will do the other parts, and they all finish before you and are waiting weeks for you to get done what they expected you to have done two weeks ago... well, don&#39;t expect them to ever incorporate you into that work again.

People tend to gravitate towards jobs that they do well, however... they like what they can do well, good, and fast. It makes them happy, and it keeps them away from boredom. This is why we have hobbies even if the jobs we do under capitalism suck.

So it is not that they are distributed -- it is simply that they follow that natural order. No one tells you where to work.

This example, as well as others shows either a shortsighted view on what is meant by "From each according to their ability; to each according to their need" and a general misunderstanding of most socio-economic systems that we&#39;re already aware of.

Again, expressed when you say: By the state, and so therfor all business goes through the state.

But even a cursory examination of this website should show you that communism has no state. And whether or not any "transitonal" period does or not depends on whether you&#39;re communist or anarchist.

-- The problem is that you presented your initial post as a solution to problems as you saw it, but none of these problems actually existed. You weren&#39;t looking for an answer. You felt the questions you were asking were rhetorical and that you were going to provide us the answers.

You respond to someone&#39;s attempt to point out these things to you with:


Where is the relavancey in that post? I gave the reasons why communism wouldnt work efficently if it was run under its present theories, i didnt ask for a definition.

But maybe you should have asked for a definition.


Hense i ask, is elmoism (the combination of socialsm, anorchism, capatilsm) more or less flawed then its predecessors?

As far as elmoism goes, I can see it flawed for a number of reasons, and far more flawed than pretty much all of it&#39;s predecessors. Maybe it&#39;s simply because you don&#39;t offer too much detail on how things work -- but take for example the Military aspect.

You say it will be solved by a separate militant group, but economic situation determines military capability. That is to say, it is the workers who supply the arms, food, and materials used in war -- thus separating these groups act little more than to enslave the worker yet again. Controlling them so that they may produce for military aspects.

Unless the militants work for themselves -- but then why exactly are they protecting and fighting wars for these workers? Why wouldn&#39;t they want to be free from militar servitude?


2) Everyman is free to do whatever it is he wants, UNTIL hes actions effect directly and negatively the living qualities of others, therefor drugs would be ok, until per say pregnancy, in wich you are effecting the feotus.

While whether or not a fetus is another "person" or not is debatable, the general idea of this principle is excellent, and it is embodied within socialism, communism, and of course anarchism. It is present throughout and expressed and conjured through democracy.


Every man is given what he needs, but by working productively there are minor benefits, per say slightly more food if avaliable without someone else having to go without. The needs include food, water, clothing, housing etc. Everyman is givin the exact same basic needs.

Under communism and socialism, and by chance anarchism, those who work the most will be the most revered and respected. Under socialism, bonuses would indeed and should indeed be in place, and under communism, aside from the happiness one should get out of doing that kind of service and receiving respect for it, these people would probably get a lot of help from others for side projects, or may even see others contributing labor towards a "gift" of sorts to them.

For example, some guy who completely busts his ass for the community, is always willing to do the shit labor that no one else wants to do, and is willing to put in 4 more hours doing whatever is needed to get the job done may have people consistently presenting him with food... if he asks them for a favor they&#39;d be more prone to help him -- etc..etc.

You really have to think of the total change in social conditions, not just the economic relations. People are going to be thinking of work and social aspects differently. And the rewards become obvious.

[1936]

How is it not the flaw of socialsm that having authotarians with power above the prolatarian will corupt the authoratarian into manipulating society to hes benefits?

[NovelGentry]

How is it not the flaw of socialsm that having authotarians with power above the prolatarian will corupt the authoratarian into manipulating society to hes benefits?

I&#39;m not sure what makes you believe this is an aspect of socialism. There are indeed some forms of authoritarian socialism, but in order for something to actually be called socialism you have to transform the means of production into workers control -- at some level the workers have to be the deciding factor.

While I don&#39;t maintain the USSR was socialist, it very well could have grown into a thriving socialist state had it not collapsed. The question is of course... why did it collapse? And when it did collapse, why didn&#39;t the workers continue fighting for real socialism?

And the answers to that have a lot to do with the path it took from pre-1917 to it&#39;s demise -- if materially you replace freeer capitalism with a regulated or state capitalism, you&#39;re gonna need some method to fastforward people&#39;s development too. Even three decades 1917-1947 is only enough for a single generation to really be brought up under the new material conditions, the old generations were brought up in the demi-feudal Russia. It&#39;s like a plethora of mixed ideologies that all have very reactionary states of minds that never properly advanced through capitalism.

With that said -- there was no way for a mass movement in Russia to actually support socialism from a material conscious or class conscious level. If it was authoritarian it was so because of the desire to maintain control as the system tried to rapidly develop and in essence skip ove the brunt of capitalism. If it failed, it&#39;s because it tried to skip over it. -- End of story.

Real socialism is born out of capitalism and a post-capitalist mindset. One where a proletariat has actually formed and people can truly become class conscious. Peasants no longer exist, and reactionary thinking is founded primarily in the old ruling class, the bourgeoisie. The old ruling class in the USSR was the Czar and aristocrats. The new ruling class actually became something of a fuede between industrial workers who were in essence actually being represented by the state (even if they didn&#39;t think so or didn&#39;t realize it, it was looking out for their interests) and the peasant farmers who grew into a petty bourgeoisie under Lenin&#39;s NEP. Stalin effectively ended that feud, but really the whole situation was one big mess.

Either way, no proper capitalist classes, and thus no class consciousness formed. Material progression was made quite rapidly, but as much as people might be forced into becoming materially conscious due to really horrid conditions, there&#39;s been no way for it to develop alongside class consciousness and thus real revolutionary consciousness.

The USSR was doomed from the day it began, as was China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. You could theoretically progress under communist leaders through these stages, but that type of progression would have to be handled with kid gloves and not one mistake. The minute you spin a backwards system like that out of control... bye bye for good.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:09 PM
2) Everyman is free to do whatever it is he wants, UNTIL hes actions effect directly and negatively the living qualities of others, therefor drugs would be ok, until per say pregnancy, in wich you are effecting the feotus.


So you are anti-abortion ?

[NovelGentry]

QUOTE (Cpt.Anarchy @ Mar 25 2005, 07:09 PM)
2) Everyman is free to do whatever it is he wants, UNTIL hes actions effect directly and negatively the living qualities of others, therefor drugs would be ok, until per say pregnancy, in wich you are effecting the feotus.


So you are anti-abortion ?

Who is this directed at? IN ()&#39;s it says Cpt.Anarchy, but I can&#39;t even see him on this thread. The original poster of that quote was "The Worlds 1st Elmoist" -- but I quoted it from him, and responded to it.

Who are you asking?

[1936]

I was cpt.anarchy but i had my name changed because there was a fellow comrade called captain anarchy wich got confusing.

To some up my political stanse with terms common on this site (So not elmoism). Before i am socialst, anorchist, communist i am a anti-facist.

The freedom of man is my primary concern and the reason i got into polictics.

So to answer your question
So you are anti-abortion ?

I belive no one should have the right to effectively "destroy" the life of what could be a fully functional and prodcutive member of society, and even if its a bum that sponges of me. Its a human and my equal, if i was not morraly obliged to abortion why not take a chainsaw to a primary school? Because who has the authority to say when a human life is of value to keep? If ever?

The ending of human life in my belief is COMPLETLEY wrong.

Its simply a question of authority, and i belive when some one has the power to say this life is of no value, then they have to much power.

[Brennus]

Raises of a dollar or two? Where the hell do yo work? I&#39;m gonna get a job there&#33;

That was a very very hypothetical example :D

[1936]

QUOTE (Cpt.Anarchy @ Mar 25 2005, 07:09 PM)
2) Everyman is free to do whatever it is he wants, UNTIL hes actions effect directly and negatively the living qualities of others, therefor drugs would be ok, until per say pregnancy, in wich you are effecting the feotus.




So you are anti-abortion ?

Are you not anti abortion makeveli?