Welfare

[eukreign]

I'm new to this forum and I'm trying to understand the problem you guys are having. I am an anarcho-capitalist and this nation is FAR from anarcho-capitalism so there is A LOT of work cut out for us Libertarians/Capitalists/Anarcho-Capitalists to get our freedoms back.

But leftists? We have socialism today!

Welfare supports people who don't want to work.

Medcare supports people who don't want to pay for medical expenses.

Social Security for people who are too stupid to save money.

Police State for those who believe cops make them safer and don't want to be bothered with learning self defense.


What else do you people want? You have it all!

[Freedom Works]

Anarcho-capitalists of the world, exploit! :D

[LSD]

Welfare supports people who don't want to work.

Welfare offers minor compensation with strict restrictions under strict regulations. Most people on welfare are still dead poor.


Medcare supports people who don't want to pay for medical expenses.

If only!

Notice that every industrialized nation on earth overs better medical coverage than the United States, and these are capitalist countries we're talking about. If American "Medcare" was really so comprehensive, why are your health statistics so abysmal?

Why do so many millions of Americans have no coverage at all?


Social Security for people who are too stupid to save money.

"too stupid"?

Are you perhaps suffering from the common right-wing delusion that capitalism is meritocratic? That "smart people" succeed, and "supid people" fail?

Makes supporting exploitation easier doesn't it? They deserve to be poor, they're supid...

Although, when you think about it, it doesn't really make the system fairer, it just makes it crueler: further punishing people who were born with disadvantages. But then maybe that kind of injustice doesn't bother you, you woudln't be alone.

Of course, capitalism isn't meritocratic in the least, so this discussion is largely moot, but I just thought I'd point out that capitalism is as bankrupt in theory as it is in practice.

And as for "Social Security", it doesn't even begin to deal with poverty or real hardships. Mainly, it's a useful political tool to keep the disenfranchised sedated, to make them feel that the government is "looking after them" so they don't do something stupid like revolt. The only "security" is offers is for the rich.

Not to mention that your President is desperately trying to dismantle "Social Security" as we speak!


Police State for those who believe cops make them safer and don't want to be bothered with learning self defense.

Police mainly exist to protect property. The police are only needed because society is so stratified. As long as a minority elite have control, a monopoly on violence is required to preserve it. When some people have more than everyone else, everone else wants some of what they have. Often, they have no choice.

The only way to prevent this, aside from equal distribution, of course, is to monopolize violence in the hands of the haves so the have-nots can't take from them. Usually this means hiring people with weapons. 1000 years ago, these was called kinghts, today they're called police. The more things change...

[Freedom Works]

Welfare offers minor compensation with strict restrictions under strict regulations. Most people on welfare are still dead poor.
Thats because when you give people an option of not working, why work?


Notice that every industrialized nation on earth overs better medical coverage than the United States, and these are capitalist countries we're talking about. If American "Medcare" was really so comprehensive, why are your health statistics so abysmal?

Why do so many millions of Americans have no coverage at all?

If this country was free, then doctors would not have to get a license, they could get certification. Poor people would not die in the streets because they would have the option of going to a doctor thats not quite as good, but its better than funding "good" things through extortion.
Why do so many millions not have it? Because over 50% of their money is being stolen at gunpoint to pay for half-assed doctors (and because of the strict regulations on becoming a doctor). Government is not efficient. If there is demand, there will be supply. And the supply will be much better than anything a communist "state" could come up with.


Are you perhaps suffering from the common right-wing delusion that capitalism is meritocratic? That "smart people" succeed, and "supid people" fail?
No, we just realize that it's your job to take care of yourself, not society's.


Although, when you think about it, it doesn't really make the system fairer, it just makes it crueler: further punishing people who were born with disadvantages. But then maybe that kind of injustice doesn't bother you, you woudln't be alone.
Life is not fair. One person, one life.


And as for "Social Security", it doesn't even begin to deal with poverty or real hardships. Mainly, it's a useful political tool to keep the disenfranchised sedated, to make them feel that the governemt is "looking after them" so they don't do something stupid like revolt. The only "security" is offers is for the rich.
Because "government is so efficient! It can solve all our problems! Not.


Not to mention that your President is desperately trying to dismantle "Social Security" as we speak!
Less taxes: good. Less laws: good. Would you agree?


Police mainly exist to protect property. The police are only needed because society is so stratified.
It's sad you are so brainwashed as to think any "government" could possibly be legitimate.


As long as a minority elite have control, a monopoly on violence is required to preserve it. When some people have more than everyone else, everone else wants some of what they have. Often, they have no choice.
A minority elite cannot have much control for very long, in a truly free society. People thought Woolworth would last forever too.



The only way to prevent this, aside from equal distribution
Who decides? And why not anarcho-capitalism?


of course, is to monopolize violence in the hands of the haves so the have-nots can't take from them. Usually this means hiring people with weapons. 1000 years ago, these was called kinghts, today they're called police. The more things change...
Yeah, because in communism, stealing would be ok!

[eukreign]

Welfare supports people who don't want to work.

Welfare offers minor compensation with strict restrictions under strict regulations. Most people on welfare are still dead poor.

How much money would someone have to get to not be considered "dead poor"?

Under your version of socialism there would be no restriction on how much wealth someone gets?

If that's really true I would have absolutely no problem with socialism. I would be a 100% Proud Free Loader. Sit at home, do nothing and reap the benefits.



Medcare supports people who don't want to pay for medical expenses.

If only!

Notice that every industrialized nation on earth overs better medical coverage than the United States, and these are capitalist countries we're talking about. If American "Medcare" was really so comprehensive, why are your health statistics so abysmal?

Oh, you want FREE service AND you want it to be QUALITY service?

How the hell are you going to expect people to provide quality service for free? Doctors are going to do their jobs so that they don't get a bullet in their brains for not working but that's not a very conducive work environment.



Social Security for people who are too stupid to save money.

"too stupid"?

Alright, I should not have said that. I take it back.

It is possible to teach people how to invest their money. But that's an issue with public schools which currently don't teach anything practical.


Are you perhaps suffering from the common right-wing delusion that capitalism is meritocratic? That "smart people" succeed, and "supid people" fail?

Success to one person is failure to someone else. Someone might be happy living their entire life in a small house with a small garden and they will be the happiest people on earth and would consider themselves successful. Someone else may consider that living in a mantion is success and living in small house is failure.

Someone may consider having a high paying job success and a low paying job failure. And yet someone else may consider a fun job that doesn't pay as much better than a higher paying job that's very depressing and stressful.


Makes supporting exploitation easier doesn't it? They deserve to be poor, they're supid...

Exploitation is much harder in this day and age with the internet where people can share ideas and experiences. The media today will jump on any business exploiting people.

Even in a socialist society there will be exploitation. These forums have a policy of herding all 'cappies' to one area and prevent them from talking openly everywhere. Ironically this is a feature of a capitalis system, you OWN this BBS and thus you have the right to control speech. Yet, isn't this exactly what socialism is supposed to prevent?

A 'group of people' will run a factory and will hire a few extra hands, they will proceed to exploit them and threaten to fire them if they speak out. Tell me how this will be made impossible in a socialist society?


Although, when you think about it, it doesn't really make the system fairer, it just makes it crueler: further punishing people who were born with disadvantages. But then maybe that kind of injustice doesn't bother you, you woudln't be alone.

Picking on rich people and robbing people people who own property is cruel too.

At least capitalism is consistent when it comes to human rights.


Of course, capitalism isn't meritocratic in the least, so this discussion is largely moot, but I just thought I'd point out that capitalism is as bankrupt in theory as it is in practice.

Capitalism is bankrupt? Where do you get these phrases? How is it bankrupt? It has existed since the first two people traded goods!


And as for "Social Security", it doesn't even begin to deal with poverty or real hardships. Mainly, it's a useful political tool to keep the disenfranchised sedated, to make them feel that the governemt is "looking after them" so they don't do something stupid like revolt. The only "security" is offers is for the rich.

Isn't that what socialism would do? To disenfranchise people and make them feel like the government is "looking after them"? That's LITTERALLY THE POINT OF SOCIALISM, GOVERNMENT LOOKING OUT FOR YOU!

Social Security does not offer ANYTHING to the rich. It doesn't offer ANYONE anything. Social Security is fraud. So, having seen how social security fails how could you trust a government with this sort of thing?


Not to mention that your President is desperately trying to dismantle "Social Security" as we speak!

Not really, he's doing something worse. He's giving the money to corporations! He's basically stealing it.

The best thing would be to give it back to the people to invest it on their own.



Police State for those who believe cops make them safer and don't want to be bothered with learning self defense.

Police mainly exist to protect property. The police are only needed because society is so stratified. As long as a minority elite have control, a monopoly on violence is required to preserve it. When some people have more than everyone else, everone else wants some of what they have. Often, they have no choice.

Earn it! You are talking as if wealth is limited. It's not!

If you grow vegetables and sell them you are CREATING wealth out of thin air. Rich people are not hoarding wealth.

Every single person can create wealth by producing something.


The only way to prevent this, aside from equal distribution, of course, is to monopolize violence in the hands of the haves so the have-nots can't take from them. Usually this means hiring people with weapons. 1000 years ago, these was called kinghts, today they're called police. The more things change...

Not sure I get your point here. But being an anarchist I'm not a big fan of state run police. I believe in private security.

BTW I'm am sincere in what I have said here. I also have an open mind and I have been known to agree with leftists so if you answer truthfuly I'm sure we can agree on some things and learn something in the process.

[quincunx5]

Welfare offers minor compensation with strict restrictions under strict regulations. Most people on welfare are still dead poor.


In new york state, If I were to go on welfare, I would get 110% of my current income [at a minimum]. I would not call myself dead poor, by any means. Why am I still working? I'm not a fucking leech.



Notice that every industrialized nation on earth overs better medical coverage than the United States.


No. Every industrialized nation offers equally mediocre medical coverage to more people.



If American "Medcare" was really so comprehensive, why are your health statistics so abysmal?


Maybe Americans don't take pride in statistics. They must be more concerned with exercising their greater freedom.



Why do so many millions of Americans have no coverage at all?


They refuse to work, they refuse to better themselves, or they simply choose to spend their money on other things.

[Mujer Libre]

Freedom Works, call me crazy- but I'd say that the doctor who didn't charge a poor person is a better doctor than the person who did...

Can't really be bothered addressing the rest of the delusions in this thread.

[afnan]

I think the major flaw with the welfare system that it is controlled and subject to the dominant bourgeios class of the society. They give welfare, they can take it back. The recent EU policies tried to do that that saw opposition from the labour and socialist organisation.

The welfare system emerged once the bourgeios realized that socialist movement in europe is getting rapidly organised and therefore extremely dangerous of them. As a smart move they intoduced this welfare system. That helped in diverting the attention of the left-wing parties. They also lost a big deal of support from the workers who thought they are not expolited anymore under the welfare system. They only people to lose in that turn of events were the poor masses of the Third World. They were the ones whoes blood was sucked at a much higher rate in order to sustain the "welfare" system. They lost and lost big time. The labours and peasants of th third world were not organised like in the Europe and therefore had to face the wrath.

[Freedom Works]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 13 2005, 02:58 AM
Freedom Works, call me crazy- but I'd say that the doctor who didn't charge a poor person is a better doctor than the person who did...

Can't really be bothered addressing the rest of the delusions in this thread.
Do you know how the laws of economics work? If the doctor values his time more than the "poor" person who is trying to rip him off (as far as Im concerned) then he will charge, or he will not do it.

If he values the good feeling more than his livelyhood, he *might* be better.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Freedom Works+Aug 13 2005, 03:03 AM--> (Freedom Works @ Aug 13 2005, 03:03 AM)
Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 13 2005, 02:58 AM
Freedom Works, call me crazy- but I'd say that the doctor who didn't charge a poor person is a better doctor than the person who did...

Can't really be bothered addressing the rest of the delusions in this thread.
Do you know how the laws of economics work? If the doctor values his time more than the "poor" person who is trying to rip him off (as far as Im concerned) then he will charge, or he will not do it.

If he values the good feeling more than his livelyhood, he *might* be better. [/b]
Well we'll just be glad that you're not a doctor then. It's not about "feeling good" it's about doing your job; all the more important when not doing your job could KILL someone.

And you just outlined why I'm not a capitalist.

BTW, not all doctors are male.


eukreign
WOW! Do you realize that what I have said is what MOST people believe. If you consider this "delusions" you will never be able to convince people to join your side. Are you going to go around telling people they are "delusional" and as a result they should agree with your socialist point of view? Good luck my friend!
Bull.Shit

Most people in Australia at least are in favour of some sort of welfare system, clearly illustrated by the outcry at federal government attempts to "reform" (i.e. dismantle) Medicare.

I'm not a socialist.

[eukreign]

Freedom Works, call me crazy- but I'd say that the doctor who didn't charge a poor person is a better doctor than the person who did...

You are not crazy Mujer Libre, that's a perfectly valid opinion. If you judge people by their willingness to help those less fortunate than I would also consider that doctor a better doctor as well.


Can't really be bothered addressing the rest of the delusions in this thread.

WOW! Do you realize that what I have said is what MOST people believe. If you consider this "delusions" you will never be able to convince people to join your side. Are you going to go around telling people they are "delusional" and as a result they should agree with your socialist point of view? Good luck my friend!

[Freedom Works]

I think the major flaw with the welfare system that it is controlled and subject to the dominant bourgeios class of the society. They give welfare, they can take it back.
Hahaha, oh how I wish THIS was true! More money goes to its rightful owner. How in the world can that be a bad thing?


The welfare system emerged once the bourgeios realized that socialist movement in europe is getting rapidly organised and therefore extremely dangerous of them. As a smart move they intoduced this welfare system. That helped in diverting the attention of the left-wing parties.
Too bad our pesky rights got in the way of "politics"! Oh wait, they don't care about those!


They only people to lose in that turn of events were the poor masses of the Third World. They were the ones whoes blood was sucked at a much higher rate in order to sustain the "welfare" system. They lost and lost big time. The labours and peasants of th third world were not organised like in the Europe and therefore had to face the wrath.
You seem to be arguing against socialism here, what's the dealio?

[quincunx5]

Freedom Works, call me crazy- but I'd say that the doctor who didn't charge a poor person is a better doctor than the person who did...

Can't really be bothered addressing the rest of the delusions in this thread.


It is you that is delusional, for you do not understand how things work.

Someone had to pay to have the doctor provide service for the poor person. Doctors generally earn more than the poor, so it is they who are heavily taxed (35% in US). In essense the doctor is charged for doing his job. That is what socialism IS.

Also, the doctor who charged the poor person for stiching up his gash, IS much better than the doctor who put duct tape on it for free.

[eukreign]

I think the major flaw with the welfare system that it is controlled and subject to the dominant bourgeios class of the society. They give welfare, they can take it back. The recent EU policies tried to do that that saw opposition from the labour and socialist organisation.

The welfare system emerged once the bourgeios realized that socialist movement in europe is getting rapidly organised and therefore extremely dangerous of them. As a smart move they intoduced this welfare system. That helped in diverting the attention of the left-wing parties. They also lost a big deal of support from the workers who thought they are not expolited anymore under the welfare system. They only people to lose in that turn of events were the poor masses of the Third World. They were the ones whoes blood was sucked at a much higher rate in order to sustain the "welfare" system. They lost and lost big time. The labours and peasants of th third world were not organised like in the Europe and therefore had to face the wrath.

GOVERNMENT. Government. government.

What you have said shows that you are against government!

It has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is NOT synonymous with government.

All capitalism says is that if i have two eggs and you have a loaf of bread that we can exchange our goods and both be better off after the transaction. THAT'S ALL.

You are making capitalism into some complex government backed parasitic beast which it is not.

I am against government too, for all of the same reasons you have listed!

We agree on everything completely accept for terminology.

[quincunx5]

It's not about "feeling good" it's about doing your job; all the more important when not doing your job could KILL someone.


There is no real purpose in life other than striving to "feel good". I guess you support holding a gun to the doctor's head screaming "Save! Save! Save!".

Not doing your job can always KILL someone. People die all the time. Are the doctors not allowed to live their lives, they have to be constantly saving others?

[LSD]

Thats because when you give people an option of not working, why work?

Because you enjoy it, because you like doing it, because you find it interesting, because you want to contribute, because of social pressure, etc... but you're getting offtopic and venturing into communist economic theory.

This thread is about whether or not the US can be currently classified as "socialist".


If this country was free, then doctors would not have to get a license, they could get certification. Poor people would not die in the streets because they would have the option of going to a doctor thats not quite as good, but its better than funding "good" things through extortion.

Oh good, send the poor people to the shitty doctor who flunked out of med school.

What is this controlled eugenics?

Surely you realize that bad medicine is often worse than no medicine!


Why do so many millions not have it? Because over 50% of their money is being stolen at gunpoint to pay

:lol:

The real poor don't even pay taxes, the "middle" poor have very low rates. The reason they can't afford healthcare isn't because of taxes, it's because of money ...specifically, they don't have any.


If there is demand, there will be supply.

Market demand is about money, not a about people. People without disposable incomes don't generate demand because they can't afford to. Accordingly, private hospitals will cater to the rich. Any services offered to the less-off, when offered at all, will be far inferior and less reliable, especially once you've reduced the regualtions on becomming a doctor!

What incentive is there to treat everyone, when the poor have such little to offer?


No, we just realize that it's your job to take care of yourself, not society's.

Unfortunately, one cannot "take care" of oneself in an exploitative system like capitalism.


Life is not fair. One person, one life.

Are you really reducing yourself to slogans? Come on, I know you can do better than that!

Sure, life isn't fair, and that's a bad thing. We should try to make it as fair as realistically possible. Ritualistically declaring "life isn't fair" isn't an answer, it isn't even commentary, it's just useless noise.


Because "government is so efficient! It can solve all our problems!

No it most certainly cannot!


Less taxes: good. Less laws: good. Would you agree?

I think that's an oversimplification. Less hierarchy is good, and laws are one of the most visible examples of blatant hierarchy. But that doesn't mean that replacing them with an equally oppressive alternative is nescessarily better.

Less laws are good when less laws is better! That is when it doesn't mean more power goes to the "private sector".

You see the problem with government in capitalism, is that it's the lesser of two evils. Sure, I wish there was no government, I'm an anarchist for God's sake, I just know that, in capitalism, there's no real alternative. Government is simply the only institution in this society that has even a semblence of democracy and accountability. And while giving it any power is dangerous, giving that power to private corporations is more so.


It's sad you are so brainwashed as to think any "government" could possibly be legitimate.

I don't!


A minority elite cannot have much control for very long

Sure it can, it has in virtually every society on earth. Ten thouand years of human history tells us that elites are quite capable of maintaining control.


in a truly free society.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it. We don't have a "truly free society", not so long as social class and stratification exists. As long as some people have more than others, freedom cannot exist. As long as some control more than others, minorities rule.


Who decides?

Everyone.


Yeah, because in communism, stealing would be ok!

That's a miscaractherization and you know it. There wouldn't be anyone to steal from.


How much money would someone have to get to not be considered "dead poor"?

I don't draw up the statistics, your government does. I'm sure they have a nice complex formula that takes into account incom, DI, expenses, debt, etc...


Under your version of socialism there would be no restriction on how much wealth someone gets?

Under my "version" of communism, one wouldn't be needed.


Oh, you want FREE service AND you want it to be QUALITY service?
How the hell are you going to expect people to provide quality service for free?

I don't know, how does every other advanced country on earth do it?


Success to one person is failure to someone else.

Not really. Sure, from an existentialist perspective, we all have personal goals and such, but, at a basic level, especially within capitalism, we all have similar fundamental desires: to have things, to own things, to be able to have and own what one wants, and from an even more basic perspective, to live, to eat, and to have shelter.

These things are not "subjective", they are universal, and capitalism affords many of them solely to the "lucky" ...or as you would put it, "the smart".


The media today will jump on any business exploiting people.

Unless it is owned by that business, of course. ...or has financial dealings with them. ...or doesn't want to call attention to itself. ...or doesn't care.


Even in a socialist society there will be exploitation. These forums have a policy of herding all 'cappies' to one area and prevent them from talking openly everywhere. Ironically this is a feature of a capitalis system, you OWN this BBS and thus you have the right to control speech. Yet, isn't this exactly what socialism is supposed to prevent?

This is a message board, not a society. This community has decided that it does not want to abide capitalists in every area of the board. In a communist society, we'd do the same thing, and you would be perfectly able to go make your own board.


A 'group of people' will run a factory and will hire a few extra hands, they will proceed to exploit them and threaten to fire them if they speak out. Tell me how this will be made impossible in a socialist society?

By abolishing hiring and firing.


Picking on rich people and robbing people people who own property is cruel too.

No it most certainly isn't. "Picking" on oppressors is perfectly justified. Was it wrong to "pick on" slave-holders?


Isn't that what socialism would do? To disenfranchise people and make them feel like the government is "looking after them"?

No, communism is about actually looking after them.


So, having seen how social security fails how could you trust a government with this sort of thing?

I wouldn't. But I'd trust private corporations even less. Ideally, I'd like to be rid of both.


Every single person can create wealth by producing something.

In theory, yes. In capitalism, no way.


Not sure I get your point here.

Then let me explain.

Let's say there are 50 people in a room. As long as I have much more than everyone else, I'm going to need to make sure that I have the only gun in the room so they don't take my "stuff". Eventually, I'm going to get sick of perpetually guarding my "stash" and hire you to hold the fun for me, in exchange for some of my stuff.

This is called a monopoly of violence. It is only nescessary because if weapons were equally distributed, I would be quickly overpowered.


GOVERNMENT. Government. government.

What you have said shows that you are against government!

You will find that many people on this forum are.

Remember that communism is defined as a classless, stateless society.

[quincunx5]

Because you enjoy it, because you like doing it, because you find it interesting, because you want to contribute, because of social pressure, etc...


You do find it interesting, but you enjoy doing it at a slow and comfortable pace. Communism would have more social pressure to work hard and fast. The doctor would wear himself out trying to help everyone. In Capitalism the doctor can say "fuck it, I'm going home, I have other things I need to accomplish, let someone else take care of it". He has a choice.



Oh good, send the poor people to the shitty doctor who flunked out of med school.


Flunking out of med school by definition does not make you a doctor.



Government is simply the only institution in this society that has even a semblence of democracy and accountability. And while giving it any power is dangerous, giving that power to private corporations is more so.


You prefer to give power to a large central body than loosely affiliated small bodies of individuals and groups of individuals? You make no sense.





Who decides?

Everyone.


If everyone decides what/how you do things then you do not support anarchy, you support an all powerful government.



Under my "version" of communism, one wouldn't be needed.


Can you briefly describe your "version" of communism, I'm very curious.



I don't know, how does every other advanced country on earth do it?


They don't. They make arbitraty compromises, too.



Let's say there are 50 people in a room. As long as I have much more than everyone else, I'm going to need to make sure that I have the only gun in the room so they don't take my "stuff". Eventually, I'm going to get sick of perpetually guarding my "stash" and hire you to hold the fun for me, in exchange for some of my stuff.


That's a stupid example, how did those 50 people get in there? People don't just appear out of nowhere, something must have convinced them that being inside this room was better than outside.

[Freedom Works]

Because you enjoy it, because you like doing it, because you find it interesting, because you want to contribute, because of social pressure, etc... but you're getting offtopic and venturing into communist economic theory.
Don't you mean the lack thereof?


Oh good, send the poor people to the shitty doctor who flunked out of med school.
I noticed you used the word "send", like you were in a position of power to force them to do what you want.


What is this controlled eugenics?
Surely you realize that bad medicine is often worse than no medicine!
Hah, arguing against socialism/communism again!


The real poor don't even pay taxes, the "middle" poor have very low rates. The reason they can't afford healthcare isn't because of taxes, it's because of money ...specifically, they don't have any.
You have GOT to be kidding me. Is it possible you are really this ignorant? Whenever the government creates a new "tax", and assigns it to a business, the business raises it's prices to compensate. This makes everyone be able to buy less and less. Why do you think 1 working father could support a family in the 50's? Lack of "government".


Market demand is about money, not a about people.
It's about wealth, not money. Communists can't seem to grasp the idea that everything CAN be used as money, and as long as someone want's something, there will be trade. But the real problem is, should people be put before wealth? If they have earned it. But just because you claim my respect, does not mean it's your's.


Accordingly, private hospitals will cater to the rich.
What's the point of being rich if you're wealth is stolen from you and given to someone who did not earn it?!

Any services offered to the less-off, when offered at all, will be far inferior and less reliable, especially once you've reduced the regualtions on becomming a doctor!


People without disposable incomes don't generate demand because they can't afford to.
Are you really that ignorant? They don't have disposable incomes because it's being stolen from them!


What incentive is there to treat everyone, when the poor have such little to offer?
Because you enjoy it, because you like doing it, because you find it interesting, because you want to contribute, because of social pressure, etc...
"Because there are seven kajillion doctors out there who became doctors because they could, and doctros earn lots of money and now you have to work at cut rates due to competition driving prices down?
Oh wait, the AMA and 14 kajillion regulations and lawyers make sure that won't happen. You're right, make doctors take less money, that will get us better doctors for less.. yeah... that makes sense. Talking to socialists is just annoying and pointless." - Rakeleer


Unfortunately, one cannot "take care" of oneself in an exploitative system like capitalism.
This is such an idiotic statement. I'm just wondering, did you go to a government indoctrination center?


Are you really reducing yourself to slogans? Come on, I know you can do better than that!
One wog, one kit. You are #1.


Sure, life isn't fair, and that's a bad thing. We should try to make it as fair as realistically possible. Ritualistically declaring "life isn't fair" isn't an answer, it isn't even commentary, it's just useless noise.
Utilitarian arguments like that sound wonderful and all, but there is not a "happy measurer" or a "wealth measurer". Freedom works. "Statism" even under the guise of, oh we don't have a "government", just people who vote on everything that should be done.


Why, exactly is less hierarchy good? I say less caste, more class.


But that doesn't mean that replacing them with an equally oppressive alternative is nescessarily better.
Trade is oppressive? Might want to take off that tin-foil hat right about now.


Less laws are good when less laws is better! That is when it doesn't mean more power goes to the "private sector".
It's not a levy, the power doesn't swing over to the private enterprise, because it is not the same coercive, non-voluntary, protection racket.



You see the problem with government in capitalism, is that it's the lesser of two evils. Sure, I wish there was no government, I'm an anarchist for God's sake, I just know that, in capitalism, there's no real alternative. Government is simply the only institution in this society that has even a semblence of democracy and accountability. And while giving it any power is dangerous, giving that power to private corporations is more so.
We get to the root of the issue! You are brainwashed. Private enterprise (oh, and don't think I support corporation law!) is MUCH MUCH more accountable than "government". You are lying to yourself if you think otherwise.


A minority elite cannot have much control for very long


Sure it can, it has in virtually every society on earth. Ten thouand years of human history tells us that elites are quite capable of maintaining control.
Only if it maintains a pretense of being fair. Oh, the cops will rip you out of your car, put metal around your arms, and violently shove you into their car, but OMG if they don't read you your rights!! :blink: Craziness.




Well, that's the rub, isn't it. We don't have a "truly free society", not so long as social class and stratification exists. As long as some people have more than others, freedom cannot exist. As long as some control more than others, minorities rule.
Sorry, positive liberty is stupid.



Everyone.
Yes, because then it's stateless!


That's a miscaractherization and you know it. There wouldn't be anyone to steal from.
Nope, it's not where I come from stealing is depriving something from the rightful owner, but you get past those nasty property rights just by deciding, hey, I want this!


Remember that communism is defined as a classless, stateless society.
You can define it however you want, that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

[LSD]

Communism would have more social pressure to work hard and fast. The doctor would wear himself out trying to help everyone.

And why would he do that?

Yeah there's social pressure to work harder, but there's also pressure to relax. The two compromise, and he works as hard as he thinks he can.

Besides, under a communist economy, there would be more people doing nescessary work and therefore each person would have to spend less time working.


In Capitalism the doctor can say "fuck it, I'm going home, I have other things I need to accomplish, let someone else take care of it".

As can he in communsm.


Flunking out of med school by definition does not make you a doctor.

I don't know. If all education and certification is private, I'm sure he'll find someone willing to cetify him.

Besides, "free market" right? He'll just call himself a "healer" and charge lower rates!


You prefer to give power to a large central body than loosely affiliated small bodies of individuals and groups of individuals?

I prefer a large democratic body to "loosely affiliated smal" totalitarian ones.


If everyone decides what/how you do things then you do not support anarchy, you support an all powerful government.

I meant everyone decides for themselves.


Can you briefly describe your "version" of communism, I'm very curious.

That would be a rather lengthy and offtopic discussion. Just look up some basic anarcho-communist models.

Basically, small communities; independent affiliated self-managing workers collectives; full free access; democratic override; full industry accountability; no state/nation/government; no monopoly on violence.


They don't.

Not fully, no, because they're attemting socialize medicine in a capitalist environment. But they still manage a great deal better than you!


That's a stupid example, how did those 50 people get in there? People don't just appear out of nowhere, something must have convinced them that being inside this room was better than outside.

Well, it was obviously a rather oversimplified example.

My point is merely that in order to preserve privalege, a monopoly on foce is required. Surely you wouldn't disagree?

[Freedom Works]

Besides, "free market" right? He'll just call himself a "healer" and charge lower rates!
Yes, he would have the freedom to do that. And people would have the freedom to research what they are getting into.


I prefer a large democratic body to "loosely affiliated smal" totalitarian ones.
You MUST have gone to a government indoctrination center to be spewing forth such folly.


Here are your rights (though some don't believe you have them) (these can be broken down further):
Right to life.
Right to liberty.
Right to property.

If you get property, you run the risk of being offended. It's like if you buy a cup of coffee, and you die because it was poisonous. That is not the seller's fault, it is your's for being a shitty customer and not doing your research.

[Clarksist]

In Capitalism the doctor can say "fuck it, I'm going home, I have other things I need to accomplish, let someone else take care of it".


Wait you can't do that under capitalism.

If you work for a hospital, you are going to be in breach of contract if you just say "fuck it let's go home".

And if you own a practice, you'll want to hire someone to do it, so they can't just say "fuck it".


Hah, arguing against socialism/communism again!


Do you even know what socialism or communism is? I know you don't know both because you "/" them together.


If everyone decides what/how you do things then you do not support anarchy, you support an all powerful government.


That would be supporting anarchism which is democratically self-governing of the entire people.

But you aren't a true anarchist. So I wouldn't expect that out of you.


Only if it maintains a pretense of being fair. Oh, the cops will rip you out of your car, put metal around your arms, and violently shove you into their car, but OMG if they don't read you your rights!! blink.gif Craziness.


There doesn't need to be a "pretense" look at the police states of history. Martial law is very effective in "shutting us up". ;)


You can define it however you want, that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.


LSD isn't "defining" anything how "he wants". He is simply stating what communism is. And seeing as you have no clear grasp of it, you have no position to call it "ridiculous".


That's a stupid example, how did those 50 people get in there? People don't just appear out of nowhere, something must have convinced them that being inside this room was better than outside.


Well, you obviously are just nitpicking, because you have no way to counter it.

Good job LSD. You made a pretty good scenario. ^_^

[Freedom Works]

Wait you can't do that under capitalism.
If you own your own business, like many in a free society would, you could.


If you work for a hospital, you are going to be in breach of contract if you just say "fuck it let's go home".
There you go applying your statist fantasy to real life.



Do you even know what socialism or communism is? I know you don't know both because you "/" them together.
Yes, I do, and they are similar. Are you denying they aren't both ridiculous?



That would be supporting anarchism which is democratically self-governing of the entire people.
Are you crazy? Anarchy has NOTHING to do with democracy. Anarchy has to do with voting with your dollar and providing for yourself. But you aren't a true anarchist. So I wouldn't expect that of you.

[LSD]

Don't you mean the lack thereof?

Don't be snippy.


I noticed you used the word "send", like you were in a position of power to force them to do what you want.

Wow, talk about nitpicking!

But, for the record, it's not me who's forcing them, it's you and your "market"! If they only have enough "money" for the shitty doctor, that's where they're going. It's where the "market" sends them.


Hah, arguing against socialism/communism again!

Snippy...


Is it possible you are really this ignorant? Whenever the government creates a new "tax", and assigns it to a business, the business raises it's prices to compensate.

Business taxes are some of the lowest they have ever been. Even if we account for all business taxes and deduct them from prices, it doesn't matter. We're talking about cents here. It would mean that a 17,000 dollar car would cost 16,998. Taxes are not the problem.


Why do you think 1 working father could support a family in the 50's?

More government. Ever since the seventies, the US government has been drastically reducing social services. In the 50s, you were just beginning to do so. Rooseveltian New Deal politics and Keynsian economics were still prevailing.


But the real problem is, should people be put before wealth?

Yes. Unconditionaly. Every time.


What's the point of being rich if you're wealth is stolen from you and given to someone who did not earn it?!

And what's the point of being a slaveholder if you can't hold slaves?

Sorry, but I reject that there should be rich, let alone a "point" to being so.


Are you really that ignorant? They don't have disposable incomes because it's being stolen from them!

No, they don't have them because they don't have them.


Because you enjoy it, because you like doing it, because you find it interesting, because you want to contribute, because of social pressure, etc...

Unfortunately, that doesn't work in capitalism. If you don't make money, you starve. You have to work as the market dictates and not as you want to, otherwise you don't "get paid". Accordingly, working for the poor and pennyless is simply not an option ...they can't "pay" you.


Because there are seven kajillion doctors out there who became doctors because they could, and doctros earn lots of money and now you have to work at cut rates due to competition driving prices down?

Not down enough.

One thing about the medical industry is that supply creates demand ..always. So even if you do have "kajillions" of doctors, you will still be able to satisfy demand with medium-to-high prices ...and the poor will still not be able to afford it.

Again, in capitalism, people without money don't count.


- Rakeleer

Who the fuck is that!? :huh:


Utilitarian arguments like that sound wonderful and all, but there is not a "happy measurer" or a "wealth measurer".

Maybe not, but we can measure things like nourishment, health, shelter, etc..

And besides, if you want to find out if people are happy there's a very simple way: ask them!


We get to the root of the issue! You are brainwashed.

Brilliant retort.


Private enterprise (oh, and don't think I support corporation law!) is MUCH MUCH more accountable than "government".

No it isn't. I have no say in who runs a private corporation. I have no say in how it is managed. I have, for the most part, no way of knowing how it's managed.

In Canada, I have a choice of watching television produced by the government, or by two private corporations. Most people trust the government channel more. Why? Because the government channel is more carefuly watched, and because they know that they have a vote in how that channel is operated.

Unless I have a good deal of money, I have no say in how CanWest or BCE operates.


Why, exactly is less hierarchy good?

Society exists to maximize the bennefit of all its members. Giving people power over other power reduces the freedoms of the person being controlled and intrinsically oppresses them. A truly free society must treat all of its members equally as they are all members.


Yes, he would have the freedom to do that. And people would have the freedom to research what they are getting into.

It's like if you buy a cup of coffee, and you die because it was poisonous. That is not the seller's fault, it is your's for being a shitty customer and not doing your research.

:rolleyes:

Which assumes that research is always possible and right.

You're saying that if I go to starbucks and the waiter puts arsenic in my coffee, it's my fault!? Wow, look who's wearing the "tinfoil hat" now!


Here are your rights

You are a teredactyl.

Oh wait, you mean just asserting something doesn't make it true? Wow, who knew...


If you own your own business, like many in a free society would, you could.

"many", what's "many"?

Most people do not own their own business, therefore most people cannot control their own hours. That's how the wage system works. If everyone was self-employed there would be no more capitalism.


Yes, I do, and they are similar.

Actually, they're quite different. A little research would be a good idea at this point.


Are you denying they aren't both ridiculous?

um... yeah. Was that even a question?

What&#39;s the point of going to a communist web site and asking if we think that communism is ridiculous. SHEESH, some people.... <_<


Are you crazy? Anarchy has NOTHING to do with democracy.

Again, research here...

Political Anarchism is defined as total stateless democracy.

Remember, Wikipedia is your friend&#33;

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 13 2005, 01:40 AM
Anarcho-capitalists of the world, exploit&#33; :D
I think you are plainly ignorent. I&#39;ve worked with the poor for years and I gota tell you many of the poor are NOT poor by choice...they were born into the life style. Some of them turned to drugs and that were the downward spiral begins. Welfare is an essential stimulator which can be used to help ease the short term suffering of those people. sure, it ain&#39;t no cure...thats for sure, but it helps.

Social programs do the rest. Hopefully they are Government backed---or whom ever.

[Krypto-Communist]

It&#39;s like if you buy a cup of coffee, and you die because it was poisonous. That is not the seller&#39;s fault, it is your&#39;s for being a shitty customer and not doing your research.

This was probably the STUPIDEST comment I have ever seen made by anybody&#33;&#33;&#33;

And who the hell has the time (especially in today&#39;s "run and bust" society) to research every fucking product that they are about to buy? And I doubt a coffee maker&#39;s website or research about it will tell you if the waiters in that restaurant are about to spike your coffee with turpentine or some other kind of deadly poison.

Gosh, you&#39;re an idiot&#33;

Why continue debating with this boof?

[Krypto-Communist]

They&#39;re fault that they don&#39;t have health insurance eh? Most people can&#39;t afford it, well...some can but it&#39;s rent and food on the table or health insurance&#33;

Is this guy out of touch with reality or what?



Tennessee to slash state health benefits for the needy

"You walk around your house and ask yourself, &#39;How long? How long am I going to be here?&#39; " she says.

Many Tennessee households face a similar cutoff as the state proceeds with removing some 191,000 residents from its expanded Medicaid plan.

Those who stand to lose TennCare benefits are the uninsured (residents who can&#39;t get insurance from employers) and the uninsurable (those whom private insurers won&#39;t take on because of pre-existing conditions). Children are spared, and so are those eligible for Medicaid and Medicare, though they will see cuts to drug and other benefits.

An additional 100,000 enrollees deemed medically needy because their health costs would plunge them into poverty unless they get assistance, were rescued from being cut this week when the governor announced they could remain, thanks to a court ruling allowing cost-saving changes to TennCare.



My Webpage (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0812/p02s02-uspo.html)

[eukreign]

Thats because when you give people an option of not working, why work?

Because you enjoy it, because you like doing it, because you find it interesting, because you want to contribute, because of social pressure, etc...

I don&#39;t enjoy working, I don&#39;t like to work and I don&#39;t find it interesting. What would you do to me? Would you still feed me and my family and provide us shelter?

Every living thing on this plannet works on incentives. Animals have an incentives to migrate to a new area because it might be safe or have abundant food. Humans have an incentive to work because they need to keep their families safe and fed. If you remove the need to work to keep yourself alive, then most people will not work.

In your society I would not work, instead I would stay at home and take care of my daughter, read books, hang out in my basement and travel. My wife would not work either, she would also take care of our daughter, ride her horse and watch TV. We would spend several hours a day walking and playing with our two dogs.

Would you work so that I can stay home live my life as I have described?

[WeThePeople1911]

The United States medical system is under stress and cannot properly distribute medical services and goods. The reason for this is not market failure, but rather, government failure.

This happens because collectivized brain was cut off after the question was asked, "Isn&#39;t it desirable that the poor and aged should have medical care in times of illness?" At first glance, without looking at the question in conxtext, the answer would be yes, who would have reason to say no?

And at that point, the mental fog set in on the socialists, leftists, communists, statists, or collectivists. Only desire remains insight, "It&#39;s for the good of the public isn&#39;t it?"

I will quote Ms. Rand

"The fog hides such facts as the enslavement, and therefore, the destruction of medical science, the regimentation and desintegration of all medical practice, and the sacrifice of professional integrity, the freedom, the careers, the ambitions, the achievements, the happiness, the lives of the very men who are to provide that "desirable" goal - the doctors."

Of course, this is nothing new. Throughout history, authoritarians and leftists have condemned the market for evils that were in actuality created by government and central panning.

Since welfare&#39;s beginning, the number of poor have increased, so they clamor on for more welfare spending.

Since the schools went "public" kids have gotten dumber, so they clamor on for more school spending.

Since medicare, the price of drugs has increased, so they clamor on for more programs.

Since the drug war, more drugs have entered the country, so they clamor on for more police, agents, officials and laws.

When will they understand, that government doesn&#39;t work? and ONLY in a capitalist society can a man be free.

[eukreign]

Are you crazy? Anarchy has NOTHING to do with democracy.

Again, research here...

Political Anarchism is defined as total stateless democracy.

Remember, Wikipedia is your friend&#33;

Liar&#33; I went to Wikipedia and i searched for "democracy" in the Anarchism article and guess what category it came up under? It was under "Anarcho-communism". So please don&#39;t spout misinformation.

From Wikipedia:


Anarchism is derived from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is opposing to rulers. All forms of anarchism oppose the existence of a State and favor what they percieve to be voluntary relationships between individuals.

Anarchism comprises various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the State, and authoritarian social and economic relationships. In the place of centralized political and economic structures structures these movements favor social relations based upon voluntary interaction. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary interaction of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not advocate chaos or anomie — it refers to "anarchy" as a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained.

I am an Anarchist because I believe in "voluntary interaction of free individuals". Which is basically also the definition of capitalism. Unlike you, I will no prevent someone from purchasing or homesteading on a piece of land and creating a communist utopia on this peace of land as long as any participant has the option of leaving. Would YOU let me create a capitalist utopia on my piece of land? If you say NO, than you are not a true Anarchist and instead a government dictator&#33;

[quincunx5]

I think you are plainly ignorent. I&#39;ve worked with the poor for years and I gota tell you many of the poor are NOT poor by choice...they were born into the life style. Some of them turned to drugs and that were the downward spiral begins. Welfare is an essential stimulator which can be used to help ease the short term suffering of those people. sure, it ain&#39;t no cure...thats for sure, but it helps.

Social programs do the rest. Hopefully they are Government backed---or whom ever.


Being poor turns one to drugs?
Perhaps they continued to be poor because they spent their money on drugs.

Oh please, there are people who sit on welfare for a major portion of their lives. Do they try to better themselves while they aren&#39;t working? No - Why bother?

Many of the poor are NOT poor by choice, but most of them continue to be poor by choice.

[quincunx5]

No it isn&#39;t. I have no say in who runs a private corporation. I have no say in how it is managed. I have, for the most part, no way of knowing how it&#39;s managed.


You never have a say in how someone else conducts his business. The best you can do is call and complain - be it private or public.

Businesses are accountable - they will cease to be if nobody wants them, you can&#39;t say the same about government.



In Canada, I have a choice of watching television produced by the government, or by two private corporations. Most people trust the government channel more. Why?


How can you be sure what people trust? Is there a poll? How is that not being brainwashed?



Because the government channel is more carefuly watched, and because they know that they have a vote in how that channel is operated.


You have a vote? You are just a meaningless agent - a mere number.



Unless I have a good deal of money, I have no say in how CanWest or BCE operates.


You have a vote here too, it&#39;s called not watching them. IF they are still around it&#39;s because your fellow Canadians are still watching them.

Do you not understand?

[eukreign]

Unless I have a good deal of money, I have no say in how CanWest or BCE operates.


You have a vote here too, it&#39;s called not watching them. IF they are still around it&#39;s because your fellow Canadians are still watching them.

Do you not understand?

Considering what one of your commies said earlier. Capitalism is bankrupt. I bet you answer to this one would be that nobody is watching the stations but they are still running the shows and going into debt doing it. :lol: Or better yet, that some evil business is funding the shows to spread their propaganda... while you happily sit and watch the government propaganda thinking you are getting the truch because you aren&#39;t watching the other channels... :lol:

No wonder you guys are never going to get anywhere. You literally don&#39;t know how.

Unless you really take the effort to understand what capitalism is about and why it works so well you will never be able to defeat it, EVER&#33;

You are fighting with blinds over your eyes. Good luck my friends.

[cheXrules]

Everyone needs help from the government, its the only way to make it&#33;

[eukreign]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:45 PM
Everyone needs help from the government, its the only way to make it&#33;

Agreed. Keep that government as far away from me as possible&#33;

[LSD]

I don&#39;t enjoy working, I don&#39;t like to work and I don&#39;t find it interesting.

Clearly, that&#39;s a problem&#33;

Perhaps you&#39;re in the wrong field or your working conditions are such that it drains any pleasure that you would otherwise recieve. In a communist society, we&#39;ll work on that.


If you remove the need to work to keep yourself alive, then most people will not work.

Why not? Most people have hobbies which involved a fair bit of work, despite the lack of material incentives.

Again, once material accumulation has been taken care of, other needs and desires will take the forefront. People will become doctors because they love the subject, because they want to help. People will build computers and fix cars and design stereo systems and construct houses because they want to.

You&#39;re right, no one would volunteer for what passes for "work" in capitalism: back-breaking 60 hours a week, terrible conditions, miserable environment, constant abuse and oppression by "superiors". No society could make people choose that. But that isn&#39;t what we&#39;re talking about. We&#39;re talking about free labour, free self-managing collectives with drastically reduced working hours. True volunterr participation, without the need of coercive threats of starvation.


Liar&#33; I went to Wikipedia and i searched for "democracy" in the Anarchism article and guess what category it came up under? It was under "Anarcho-communism".


Originally posted by Wikipedia
These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary interaction of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not advocate chaos or anomie — it refers to "anarchy" as a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained.

Governance by the "voluntary interaction of free individuals". Sounds like democracy to me&#33; Not republican "democracy", surely, but true democracy noentheless.

And if you look at the discussion page, you&#39;ll see that that article is far from uncontroversial. Unfortunately, it looks like in this case the ancaps have permeated quite far. Nonetheless, historically and ideologically, anarchism is predicate on the elimination of coercive relationships. Obviously, the only alternative, short of chaos, is a society of equals. When a society of equals makes decisions, it&#39;s called democracy.


Would YOU let me create a capitalist utopia on my piece of land?


You&#39;ll have to specify what you mean.

If you mean sit around all day, playing with currencies, writing balance sheets, and calculating interest, then, no, no one will give a damn. But aside from that, I can&#39;t even see what you would be able to do that would be "capitalist"?

In a communist society, people wouldn&#39;t "work for" you because there be no reason to. If they already are materialy taken care of, what incentive is there to accept your "leadership" and give up their industrial sovereinty? And without employees, this "capitalist utopia" is kind of meaningless.

Look at it this way, if there are enough people that eager to join a capitalist society, then it means that communism has failed and, it being populist by nature, it will be quickly abandoned.

If the people want communism, they&#39;ll have it, if they don&#39;t they won&#39;t. There&#39;s no force here.


Businesses are accountable - they will cease to be if nobody wants them

That&#39;s hardly accountability.

Again, most of the time you don&#39;t know what they&#39;re doing, how they&#39;re doing it, or why they&#39;re doing it. And, also again, we both know the proficiancy of corporations in marketing and advertising. Convincing people that they "want" something is actually rather easy.


How can you be sure what people trust? Is there a poll?

There have been several, in fact.


How is that not being brainwashed?

:lol:

How can you expect anyone to have an intelligent conversation with you when you make statements like this?

If the people agree with you, they&#39;re right, if they disagree they&#39;re "brainwashed", certainly you are never wrong.... that would be unthinkable&#33; :o


You have a vote? You are just a meaningless agent - a mere number.

Yes, but at least I&#39;m an equal number (in theory), as opposed to the market in which I "vote with my dollars".


You have a vote here too, it&#39;s called not watching them. IF they are still around it&#39;s because your fellow Canadians are still watching them.

Wait, I thought that vorting was just "meaningless agent - a mere number"?

So you oppose the democracy of election voting but support the oligarchy of "market" voting? Wow, talk about misplaced priorities.


Keep that government as far away from me as possible&#33;

From me as well. While you&#39;re at it, take your "market", your "private sector", and your "entepeneurs" too.

[Publius]

Market &#39;voting&#39; and democratic &#39;voting&#39; are entirely different things.

The market is not absolutist in it&#39;s voting.

Everyone doesn&#39;t have to like something, or even the idea of having that something, for it to exist.

In this way, a very small number of people can exert their will in a market with their dollars and gain acceptable representation i.e. what they want.

Whereas in a democracy, if something is voted on, it IS absolute.

The losers cannot get what they want.

They lost.

This does nothing but promote dichotomies in areas where there need not be.

The people don&#39;t need to VOTE on issues in the democratic fashion when it would be much more simple and effective use a monetary &#39;voting&#39; system.

A democratic system of production could not produce say, light-bulbs any better than a market and since communism destroys the market, it basically destroys the economy as a whole.

For example, tell me many lightbulbs should be manufactured. Or how many lightbulbs should rationed out, or what type, or whatever.

There is literally none or no group of people that could make these decisions, and even if there were, it would be highly stratified, specialized and uniquely powerful group, meaning, it&#39;s not democratic in the least.

You cannot vote democratically on most issues, therefore you hand over power to another , smaller group (Say, the workers in the lightbulb factory) and they wield ultimate power of an essential product, in a most un-democratic manner.

It&#39;s a no-win situation.

[quincunx5]

And, also again, we both know the proficiancy of corporations in marketing and advertising. Convincing people that they "want" something is actually rather easy.


Yes, but then they still need to deliver it.

What do you have have against merketing and advertising? How do you know what products are out there?

As an electrical engineer I need to know what new gadgets are developed all the time. If I get a catalog at work from a known manufacturer I will look into it and see what&#39;s new. I may not get it from the specific place, but I will know what&#39;s out there.

As a matter of fact, have you noticed how few engineers actually go for communism? It must be that they realize just how many pieces must be individually produced. Communism == Stagnation.



How can you expect anyone to have an intelligent conversation with you when you make statements like this?

If the people agree with you, they&#39;re right, if they disagree they&#39;re "brainwashed", certainly you are never wrong.... that would be unthinkable&#33;


Corporations cannot force you to drive below a below limit, they cannot limit the size of your house on your property, they can&#39;t restrict EM frequency usage, they cannot control your internet usage (like great firewall of china), and as you said they don&#39;t have monopoly on violence.

You are not able to see what they are doing any more than you can see what I&#39;m doing? Does that bother you? You need to know what I&#39;m doing?

The government shows you only what it wants to show you, nothing more. The fact that you trust everything is says is why I feel you are brainwashed.

You fail to see that your government is the largest corporation in your country&#33;
You also fail to realize that when it comes to basic cable or broadcast you are not really the customer of those other two private corporations. Their advertisers are their customers. They provide entertainment paid for by their customers.

Private corporations say "we have something you may want to buy", your government says "we&#39;ll take care of you". Why would you trust the government?



Yes, but at least I&#39;m an equal number (in theory), as opposed to the market in which I "vote with my dollars".


Yes, but not everyone will vote on everything. Would you want to vote on how many bridges to build in Zaire? Would you be comfortable making that vote?

In communism some will spend their time working because they love doing it. Someone else (probably you) will be sitting around researching and voting on as many things as they could. So you see it&#39;s not really equal, you will "vote with your time".

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 02:51 AM
I&#39;m new to this forum and I&#39;m trying to understand the problem you guys are having. I am an anarcho-capitalist and this nation is FAR from anarcho-capitalism so there is A LOT of work cut out for us Libertarians/Capitalists/Anarcho-Capitalists to get our freedoms back.

But leftists? We have socialism today&#33;

Welfare supports people who don&#39;t want to work.

Medcare supports people who don&#39;t want to pay for medical expenses.

Social Security for people who are too stupid to save money.

Police State for those who believe cops make them safer and don&#39;t want to be bothered with learning self defense.


What else do you people want? You have it all&#33;
Please tell me that you are not for real...you can&#39;t be. So ignorant of reality...
Sorry, but I do not debate with morons.


"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn&#39;t the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of &#39;free contract&#39; between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."
Noam Chomsky

[quincunx5]

Please tell me that you are not for real...you can&#39;t be. So ignorant of reality...
Sorry, but I do not debate with morons.


Reality? Anarcho-Capitalism never existed anywhere.

No, you don&#39;t debate at all&#33; You spout a quote from a pompous "Burgeois".

Not that he/you is wrong perse. I see it forming into a society of bandits and mafiosos - the physically strong will enslave the physically weak.

All forms of anarchy are stagnant.

[eukreign]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:14 AM
All forms of anarchy are stagnant.

All governments have ALWAYS grown out of their original boundaries, especially the US Federal Government. How do you propose we create a government that does not eventually grow and opress its people?

[Freedom Works]

Then you are not as economically intelligent as I thought, quincunx5.

[quincunx5]

Then you are not as economically intelligent as I thought, quincunx5.


I&#39;m glad you pointed this out.

I am economically intelligent because I chose to use my time not to argue with someone who shared 99% of my beliefs. I&#39;d rather argue with those who share 1%.

If you&#39;ve read my posts you would see that I don&#39;t advocate Anarcho-Capitalism. If anything my views are closer to Minarchy.



How do you propose we create a government that does not eventually grow and opress its people?


That is a good question. I am still researching this very problem.

[Freedom Works]

Support anarcho-capitalism&#33;

Seriously though, minarchy is silly, because you cannot limit "government".

[quincunx5]

There are problems in anarcho-capitalism that lead me to believe that it will be stagnant. Perhaps we can discuss this in another thread at another time?

EDIT: you cannot limit government in a democracy.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 14 2005, 04:25 AM
Support anarcho-capitalism&#33;

Seriously though, minarchy is silly, because you cannot limit "government".
And anarcho-capitalism inevitably leads to the formation of some form of government, since governments arise to protect private property.

Same shit.

[Freedom Works]

That depends on your definition of "government".

Mine is: a company that regularly and massively extorts its "customers" to provide a "service" at the barrel of a gun

[KC]

Mine is: a company that regularly and massively extorts its "customers" to provide a "service" at the barrel of a gun

Well that is a horrible definition. I think you&#39;d be better off going with the dictionary definition.

[Freedom Works]

Really? Is it wrong?

If it is not wrong, how is it "horrible"?

[KC]

Because it isn&#39;t objective.

[Freedom Works]

Of course not, "government" and "corporations" are fictional.

[quincunx5]

Mine is: a company that regularly and massively extorts its "customers" to provide a "service" at the barrel of a gun


You are ruining your credibility with terrible examples.

[KC]

Definitions are supposed to be objective; i.e. no bias.

[Freedom Works]

Yes, but it is still completely truthful.

[KC]

Yes but it&#39;s a horrible definition. I wouldn&#39;t even consider it a definition. I&#39;d consider it your view of government.

[quincunx5]

And anarcho-capitalism inevitably leads to the formation of some form of government, since governments arise to protect private property.


Well I think in this case there is no central property certificates. You stake claim to something and protect it with weapons.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:51 AM


What else do you people want? You have it all&#33;
Judging by what you say and how you say it, i dont think youd ever had to collect government aid in your whole life.
You shouldnt talk shit about things you dont know. cause we dont "have it all"

Now shut up and pay your taxes&#33;

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 03:26 AM

Freedom Works, call me crazy- but I&#39;d say that the doctor who didn&#39;t charge a poor person is a better doctor than the person who did...

You are not crazy Mujer Libre, that&#39;s a perfectly valid opinion. If you judge people by their willingness to help those less fortunate than I would also consider that doctor a better doctor as well.


Can&#39;t really be bothered addressing the rest of the delusions in this thread.

If you consider this "delusions" you will never be able to convince people to join your side. Are you going to go around telling people they are "delusional" and as a result they should agree with your socialist point of view? Good luck my friend&#33;
"WOW&#33; Do you realize that what I have said is what MOST people believe. "

Most people dont believe the stupid shit you said about government aid, because most people in the world arent bitter white middle class men. Maybe you dont consider anything else to be "people" because those are the only ones I really see ever complaining in public to that extent about welfare and SOCIAL SECURITY for gods sake. "boo hoo, their taking my money, now i cant put a bigger drink holder in my SUV"

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:25 AM


And anarcho-capitalism inevitably leads to the formation of some form of government, since governments arise to protect private property.


Well I think in this case there is no central property certificates. You stake claim to something and protect it with weapons.
No what happens is that people with power (say, lots of land/resources) hire people to protect their property for them. Their holding become a sort of primitive city-state, and HELLO- we have a state again.

I didn&#39;t say that there was a government in existence from the very beginning, I said that it will arise over time, as power becomes more and more concentrated and people/small groups claim the right to the "legitimate use of force."

[Freedom Works]

You blame capitalism for taxes?

[Publius]

Can I expect a reply to my post?