To inquire or not to inquire.

[Omega]

Greetings,

I have been reading some of the posts in the thread „What to do about Stormfront“. There is quite a variety of comments ranging from the violent as posted by member Comrad Scott:

“just annother bunch of stupid fascist punks who should have some sense beaten into them Shut down the damn site and find the fuckers then beat them is what i say.”

to the intellectual as posted by member Ewokeutopia:

“There isnt really much that can be done. The best way to combat stormfront would be to make more websites out there to refute what it teaches, directly, so that we can stop confused and frustrated white kids from going down the path to fascism. I can guarentee that most of these people on stormfront are just confused kids, and alot of them will probably eventually grow out of it, so the best thing we can do is help them grow out of that trash. “

Actually, in reference to what member Ewok has written, one of the functions of Stormfront is to make public information that would otherwise be suppressed as being “Unpolitically Correct” and to serve as a platform of discussion for these issues.

I myself am very right wing and have no problem discussing the issues…as long as they are discussed intelligently that is. One trend that I have seen when discussing issues of interest is that the right wing tends to try to make public the full results of policies but the liberals want information suppressed and discussion avoided. I am for putting all aspects of an issue on the table.

Why the suppression? Are you interested in finding out the full impact of the policies you support or not? I for one encourage inquiry. Do you?

[apathy maybe]

Just a warning, if you are a fascist or racist scum you will be banned. We don't mind so much if you are just a crazy right-winger, so long as you stay in the cage.

So, what do you mean by "very right wing"? Do you mean economically, socially or what?

Also, what do you mean by "liberal", people around here generally aren't liberals in any meaningful sense of the word. Liberals support capitalism, no matter their stance on the state.

As to discussing intelligently, while racists may appear intelligent or appear to debate intelligently, by virtue of them being racists, they can't be intelligent. Contradiction that. The same with fascists generally.

So anyway, stick around, start some threads. We have probably read the crap before and will ridicule you. But if you do come up with something original and/or intelligent, you will get at least some debate.

[Omega]

Greeitings Mr Apathy Maybe,

Good day to you also.

I detect a hint of hostility in your reply. I will not reciprocate.

To answer your question:
Socially is where the right wing comes in. Politically I am in favour of a republican form of government as was instituted at the founding of America…but with a stronger and more explicit Constitution. Economically I am definitely not capitalist or communist. A Socialistic economy looks pretty good ( as found in Sweden, Norway and Germany) but safeguards must be put into place to prevent abuse of the system.

Enlighten me to something. If you do not consider yourself liberal, how would you define yourself? The answer is perhaps obvious to other members on this board but I am new here and do not know.

[back door man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:43 pm
Greeitings Mr Apathy Maybe,

Good day to you also.

I detect a hint of hostility in your reply. I will not reciprocate.

To answer your question:
Socially is where the right wing comes in. Politically I am in favour of a republican form of government as was instituted at the founding of America…but with a stronger and more explicit Constitution. Economically I am definitely not capitalist or communist. A Socialistic economy looks pretty good ( as found in Sweden, Norway and Germany) but safeguards must be put into place to prevent abuse of the system.

Enlighten me to something. If you do not consider yourself liberal, how would you define yourself? The answer is perhaps obvious to other members on this board but I am new here and do not know.
Most of the members here are communist and socialist. Can't understand how that wasn't blatantly apparent to you though.

So enlighten us Omega, what basis do you have to support racism? Assuming of course you are a Stormfronter, if not, then why do you support these right-wing social policies you speak of?

[Omega]

Originally posted by back door [email protected] 18, 2007 03:58 pm


So enlighten us Omega, what basis do you have to support racism?



Assuming of course you are a Stormfronter, if not, then why do you support these right-wing social policies you speak of?
What is your particular definition of racism?

As to social policies, I will give you a summation first without going to much into detail. Please feel free to ask for further clarification if you would like.

I find that conservative social policies provide for a community that is more stable, secure and sustainable. I think every couple that is starting a family and looking for a place to live asks the question “How is this community going to be in 15 to 20 years when our children are in high school?” or “Will we be able to live out our retirement here or will we have to move in our old age?” I think these questions are not only fair questions but also necessary questions that need to be answered for those thinking about their future and that of their family.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Omega+March 18, 2007 04:42 pm--> (Omega @ March 18, 2007 04:42 pm)
back door [email protected] 18, 2007 03:58 pm


So enlighten us Omega, what basis do you have to support racism?



Assuming of course you are a Stormfronter, if not, then why do you support these right-wing social policies you speak of?
What is your particular definition of racism?

As to social policies, I will give you a summation first without going to much into detail. Please feel free to ask for further clarification if you would like.

I find that conservative social policies provide for a community that is more stable, secure and sustainable. I think every couple that is starting a family and looking for a place to live asks the question “How is this community going to be in 15 to 20 years when our children are in high school?” or “Will we be able to live out our retirement here or will we have to move in our old age?” I think these questions are not only fair questions but also necessary questions that need to be answered for those thinking about their future and that of their family. [/b]
What "conservative social policies" are you talking about, specifically?

Also, what do you mean by a "stable community"? Ask yourself WHY communities are unstable, ask yourself why demographics shift and different people are made to arrive or leave. Furthermore, you DO know that basically everyone wants a "stable community", but the question is for WHOM. Conservative policies seek to establish "stable communities" for certain people and certain people only, while everyone else gets to enjoy gentrification and/or getting the shaft.

[back door man]

Originally posted by Omega+March 18, 2007 04:42 pm--> (Omega @ March 18, 2007 04:42 pm)
back door [email protected] 18, 2007 03:58 pm


So enlighten us Omega, what basis do you have to support racism?



Assuming of course you are a Stormfronter, if not, then why do you support these right-wing social policies you speak of?
What is your particular definition of racism?

As to social policies, I will give you a summation first without going to much into detail. Please feel free to ask for further clarification if you would like.

I find that conservative social policies provide for a community that is more stable, secure and sustainable. I think every couple that is starting a family and looking for a place to live asks the question “How is this community going to be in 15 to 20 years when our children are in high school?” or “Will we be able to live out our retirement here or will we have to move in our old age?” I think these questions are not only fair questions but also necessary questions that need to be answered for those thinking about their future and that of their family. [/b]
Ah that answers my question, so what, are you one of those "separate but equal" racists? If so, you are a lunatic, don't want to get offensive or anything of the sort but its my true sentiment to people who hold that particular belief. Well... that belief and all other racists beliefs.

As for the second part of the post, I'm afraid you didn't go into detail at all, to the point where it's hard to give a reply. But as a conservative in political matters (to sum it up) you believe abortion is wrong, homosexuals are sinful and must be denied a number of rights (of course considering you are a racist, I wouldn't be surprised if you went a step further on the homosexuality related issues) let's see what else... Prayers in school? Teaching Creationism theory in Science class?

Why don't you pick your favorites and give us a detailed explanation on why you hold those opinions.
Although you might be banned after professing those beliefs... Hmm...

[RGacky3]

I would hope a guy would'nt be banned for believing in Creationism, believing that Homosexuality is a sin and that Abortion is wrong, this is Opposing Ideologies.

From what I get he seams like a Walfare Conservative, good old boys, strong local communities with traditions and a strong government that helps the communities. A Social/Economic Conservative (when I say economic conservative I'm saying rather than Liberal). Very quaint philosophy in my opinion.

Most people here would'nt consider themselves Liberals, because we generally oppose the Capitalistic aspect of Liberalism, most of us also don't believe in the Capitalist quasi Democratic republics that Liberals support.

I consider myself an Anarcho-syndicalist/Communist. Meaning I don't believe in the state, nor do I believe in Capitalism, I believe that Society should be run by free associations of people working together.

I personally have no problem with rightwingers bringing up devisive issues, a lot of people here react simply with anger and spite, but if you bring up a serious issue from a different perspective I have no problem talking about it candidly.

The problem comes when people come on this board and just spit out hateful things for the sole purpose of being hateful, not to foster any debate, just to be dicks.

[back door man]

I would hope a guy would'nt be banned for believing in Creationism, believing that Homosexuality is a sin and that Abortion is wrong, this is Opposing Ideologies.
Well when he asked what my definition of racism was, it was implied he held some sort of racist belief, and well, in the United States white supremacist are very often hand-in-hand with Neo-Nazis, aka, fascists. I could be wrong though.

[Omega]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 18, 2007 05:06 pm


What "conservative social policies" are you talking about, specifically?


To answer you question about what conservative social policies I am talking about: On a personal level, it is when people recognize and accept that there are certain things expected of them from the family and community due to their gender and/or age. Also, there are recognized unwritten rules governing social behaviour and interaction between individuals. In a word Tradition…which we do not see hardly at all anymore in American society. Or you can call it culture.

But that can be a bit to much broad a description. Here is a more specific illustration (I hope I do not bore anybody with this)... the working class community where I grew up in the 70´s.

Our parents grew up in the 30´s and 40´s and there were clearly defined roles that people had. Very conservative. The men worked and brought home the paycheck, the women stayed home and took care of the house and kids, the kids payed attention to what the adults said and did not talk back and the family had priority over just about everything.

I came home from school and my mother was there…like all the other mothers were for the other kids. Dad walked through the door and a home made dinner was being put on the table when he said “Hello”. Not just for him but for every other husband in the neighbourhood. Why? Because this is what women did…if you are a woman you take care of the house, the kids and your husband.

After Dad is done eating and having his coffee he attends to what needs top be done around the house. That is his job…bringing home the paycheck and the maintance of the house, yard and equipment. If he wanted my help I had to be there and no kicking up a fuss about it. Same as all the other kids in the neighbourhood when their fathers needed help.

What about the old folks? They helped around the house and watched the kids. Also, you did not send them to old age homes. The family took care of them at home until it was no longer possible…not until it was no longer convenient.

On a personal conduct level, there was behaviour that was considered proper and appropriate and expected of an individual ( I still address any adult that I have not been introduced to as “Sir” or “Madam” regardless of age) and other behaviour that was viewed as unacceptable and/or immoral and you just did not do it.

To sum it up: a code of conduct. It governed the way we interacted with each other within and outside of the family and we all agreed on it. We were all more or less on the same sheet of music and everything ran smooth.

Now this may sound idealistic to some here. I have seen a really immense change in the rules of society since my childhood days. But I lived what I have described above and I know it can exist.

Mr. Maniac Expression I hope the above illustration answers your question about my conservative social views.

I will end the post here before it gets to long.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Omega
Socially is where the right wing comes in. Politically I am in favour of a republican form of government as was instituted at the founding of America…but with a stronger and more explicit Constitution. Economically I am definitely not capitalist or communist. A Socialistic economy looks pretty good ( as found in Sweden, Norway and Germany) but safeguards must be put into place to prevent abuse of the system.
Interestingly, the type of economy you favour is a capitalist one, but with greater welfare provisions then in the USA. Not quite socialist.


Enlighten me to something. If you do not consider yourself liberal, how would you define yourself? The answer is perhaps obvious to other members on this board but I am new here and do not know.I call my self an "adjective free anarchist", under the picture (which displays an anarchist symbol :AO: ) is where you can see it.

Anyway, I wasn't really trying to be that hostile. Unless you are a scum, in which case you deserve it. Stick around, ask questions, read the threads in Learning (esp. stickied ones) and have fun.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by back door [email protected] 18, 2007 05:45 pm

I would hope a guy would'nt be banned for believing in Creationism, believing that Homosexuality is a sin and that Abortion is wrong, this is Opposing Ideologies.
Well when he asked what my definition of racism was, it was implied he held some sort of racist belief, and well, in the United States white supremacist are very often hand-in-hand with Neo-Nazis, aka, fascists. I could be wrong though.
Not really, most racists arn't fascists. But I don't think people should be banned just for their ideas, as long as they are cordial.


In a word Tradition…which we do not see hardly at all anymore in American society. Or you can call it culture.

I have no problem with tradition, in fact tradition can be very good for society, and in no way is Socialism incompatible with oldstyle conservative values of family, respect, dignity and community. It starts getting incompatible when these traditions are forced, and turn into laws, when it ceses being a natural tradition, and rather becomes something that people are foced to do.

If you look at what has ripped American tradition, and conservative values up it would have to be Capitalism, sexualizing everything, turning the cutlure into a me-first, make money culture, destroyed all sense of value replacing it with greed, and at the same time forcing traditions by making them into laws, and forcing them from above. Another example would be Neo-Liberalism, look at what Global Capitalist Domination has done to third world cultures, economies, their way of living, its turn it apart.

I personally think the Family is the most important part of Society and that people should alwasy show respect for their elders and should treat women with dignity and be good neighbors.

Don't make the mistake of putting everything in left and right, liberal and conservative.

[Omega]

Mr. Back Door Man your reply was disappointing.

When member Maniac Expression asked me to be more specific about what I ment by “Consrvative Social Policies” I wrote things out and explained what I ment. With a personal example included.

You ask me a broad question about my support of a concept; I ask you to be more specific about what you are asking me my opinion about and you not only do not answer my question but raise the possibility of me being a lunatic.

And yes, I know I did not go into any detail about what I ment by "Conservative Social Policies". As I wrote in the post I was only giving a summary at first.

When I replied to your post I did not address you in any disrespectful manner. I am not here to insult anyone. I am here to discuss ideas. So if you don´t, as you have written, “Want to get offensive” then just address me the same way I address to you.

Thank You.

[Omega]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 18, 2007 06:51 pm

Interestingly, the type of economy you favour is a capitalist one, but with greater welfare provisions then in the USA. Not quite socialist.


Hmmm...definitions again. Does private ownership = Capitalist or not?

Here is the problem as I see it. Private ownership produces initiative however the pursuit of profit can overshadow civic responsibility. On the other end, State ownership (and the lack of private ownership) can produce indifference and thus stagnation. We have seen examples of both of these extremes…the former in America and the latter in the Soviet Union.

So here is a question that I have been pondering for quite some time. How can a government maintain the initiative that accompanies private ownership and also a mentality where it is felt that the surplus should be used for the advancement of the citizens?

Any suggestions?

[Omega]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 18, 2007 07:26 pm--> (RGacky3 @ March 18, 2007 07:26 pm)
back door [email protected] 18, 2007 05:45 pm

I would hope a guy would'nt be banned for believing in Creationism, believing that Homosexuality is a sin and that Abortion is wrong, this is Opposing Ideologies.
Well when he asked what my definition of racism was, it was implied he held some sort of racist belief, and well, in the United States white supremacist are very often hand-in-hand with Neo-Nazis, aka, fascists. I could be wrong though.
Not really, most racists arn't fascists. But I don't think people should be banned just for their ideas, as long as they are cordial.


In a word Tradition…which we do not see hardly at all anymore in American society. Or you can call it culture.

I have no problem with tradition, in fact tradition can be very good for society, and in no way is Socialism incompatible with oldstyle conservative values of family, respect, dignity and community. It starts getting incompatible when these traditions are forced, and turn into laws, when it ceses being a natural tradition, and rather becomes something that people are foced to do.

If you look at what has ripped American tradition, and conservative values up it would have to be Capitalism, sexualizing everything, turning the cutlure into a me-first, make money culture, destroyed all sense of value replacing it with greed, and at the same time forcing traditions by making them into laws, and forcing them from above. Another example would be Neo-Liberalism, look at what Global Capitalist Domination has done to third world cultures, economies, their way of living, its turn it apart.

I personally think the Family is the most important part of Society and that people should alwasy show respect for their elders and should treat women with dignity and be good neighbors.

Don't make the mistake of putting everything in left and right, liberal and conservative. [/b]
think I might be getting my definitions mixed up again here...I did that before today. By "Socialism" do you mean no private ownership of the means of production or private property?

What would you suggest so that the above mentioned "Old Style Traditions" remained as instilled values and there was no need to legislate them?

I agree with you as to how the American Society has been taken over by materialism and egotisim...(pffffft! what a bad combination). As I mentioned before, I am not in favor of a capitalistic economy...I do not like the results that I have seen.

[ichneumon]

it is interesting that you identify the end of the traditional value system you admire with the rise of consumer capitalism. it is reasonably true that economic demands drove women into the workplace, not feminist ideology.

but more important to the end of that lifestyle is the information revolution. conformity was a big part of the 50esque american dream. where do the women who don't want to be housewives go? what if a guy doesn't want a family? what if the family next door doesn't hold the same belief system as yours?

the system you pine for was good for the lords of suburbia. it sucked ass for everyone else. non-whites, non-conformists, the urban poor, the rural poor, LOTS of people.

but, you see, we NEED individuals now. they produce the new information, the new discoveries that drive a post-industrial economy. what was needed then were identical cogs to man soulless factories. not so much now. innovators, scientists, pioneers. this is as true of modern communism as capitalism.

the information age IS. every child in the first world now can select his or her belief system from all those ever in existence. why imitate your parents if your parents are miserable? this is liberation, what you envision are shackles. and the irony is this: you yourself are a gem of postmodernism, a true product of the information age, a striking example of individualism because you pine for conformity!

welcome to the one and twenty. jump in, swim, it sure beats drowning!

[RNK]

You're very right-wing but you do not like capitalism? Well, isn't someone a walking contradiction...

[Raúl Duke]

You're very right-wing but you do not like capitalism? Well, isn't someone a walking contradiction...


As I mentioned before, I am not in favor of a capitalistic economy...I do not like the results that I have seen.

I suppose he meant they are into traditional institutions, might prefer to see something like in swedan/norway in economic terms (he mentioned it himself.)

He could be like a social democrat, economically, yet conservative in social issues. Also I don't think he believes capitalism can be replaced with anything better, yet achnowledges some of the problems in capitalism.

Or maybe he might be a conservative socialist....of sorts.... :blink:

Some how I feel he's different from the other new right-wingers that come here recently...I mean the others just rant, play deaf, and leave...while this one wants to really communicate in a cordial manner....I have a feeling that maybe he'll stay here to continue debating.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:12 pm
think I might be getting my definitions mixed up again here...I did that before today. By "Socialism" do you mean no private ownership of the means of production or private property?

What would you suggest so that the above mentioned "Old Style Traditions" remained as instilled values and there was no need to legislate them?

I agree with you as to how the American Society has been taken over by materialism and egotisim...(pffffft! what a bad combination). As I mentioned before, I am not in favor of a capitalistic economy...I do not like the results that I have seen.
By Socialism I pretty much mean an end of Wage Slavery (meaning exploitation of Labor) and an end of Private ownership of Land and means of production, not private property. Pretty much What I want is a free Society where those who work can enjoy the fruits of their labor collectivly, rather than one man enjoy the fruits while the others work, thats pretty much the soul of Socialism.

As to what I suggest about Old Style Traditions? I don't suggest anything should be done other than ending Capitalism, other than that people should be free to follow their own traditions, or not, families can instill values to their children, its not up to the state, which really has no right to exist. Really the biggest threat to Values is pretty much Materialism caused by Capitalism, not the moral degredation of people, people arn't different then they were in the past but the situation they are in is.

The problem with the Walfare State and the Social-Democrat Society you support is that it is pretty much just treating the symptoms not curing the sickness. Wage Slavery still exists and even if there are laws that make workers lives better they are still being stolen from, and in todays increasingly Competitive world those Social-Democracies are breaking up, just look at the raise of China, probably one of the worst examples of cut throught Capitalism, Soft-Capitalist countires such as Sweeden can't compete, and as we are seeing they have to break up their Walfare states. The cure in my view is workers taking over their workplace and people taking control over their own lives. As long as Power and wealth is concentrated in the few, your going to see things go down hill.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:58 am
You're very right-wing but you do not like capitalism? Well, isn't someone a walking contradiction...
I do not see it as a contradiction. A social philosophy is one thing and an economic philosophy is another.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by Omega+March 19, 2007 12:04 pm--> (Omega @ March 19, 2007 12:04 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 01:58 am
You're very right-wing but you do not like capitalism? Well, isn't someone a walking contradiction...
I do not see it as a contradiction. A social philosophy is one thing and an economic philosophy is another. [/b]
You are right, but social conservatism and capitalism go very well together, as capitalism helps enforce the hierarchy on which social conservatism is built.

Also, can you outline your economic ideology? I know you say you do not like capitalism, but you must realise that when we (and most people today) say capitalism we do not mean just laissez-faire capitalism, we simply mean a system which is based on concept of private ownership of the means of production.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:50 am


the information age IS. every child in the first world now can select his or her belief system from all those ever in existence. why imitate your parents if your parents are miserable? this is liberation, what you envision are shackles. and the irony is this: you yourself are a gem of postmodernism, a true product of the information age, a striking example of individualism because you pine for conformity!

HEHEHEHEH! :) Well put and I would have to agree. Yeah…I am old fashioned…therefore a misfit today. I would have been quite acceptable prior to the 1960´s though. Ahya…anyway…

One has to ask, with everybody doing their own thing, is it bringing them happiness? Is it bringing society closer together or dividing it further?

Take for instance divorce. I can only remember one family in the entire neighborhood that got a divorce. What is the divorce rate today? Relationships now seem to have taken on a “disposable” characteristic.

Also, how many people today are going to see psychologists compared to the 1970´s?

You mention liberation and what I envision are shackles. Perhaps for some but for others not. If you do not approve of “Conduct XY” and a law is passed making “Conduct XY” illegal are you going to feel relieved or shackled?

You are correct that the information age "IS" and people are being more individual than in the prior decades. However I am also seeing that this individualism is diminishing the stability and security that I have seen before.

[RNK]

Yes, economic and social philosophies differ. Essentially you are saying that you are an economic centrist and a social conservative, from what I've read. Guess who else could describe themselves as that? Hitler.


Relationships now seem to have taken on a “disposable” characteristic.

What business is that of yours? Relationships are between two people -- nobody cares whether or not you think that's okay or not.


Is it bringing society closer together or dividing it further?

The only people dividing it further are people like you, who ignorantly cling to their traditional social views and oppose anything that goes against your personal "grain". You don't see people in "unstable relationships" running around *****ing about people who have been married for 50 years, nor do you see gay couples running around complaining about straight people. You do see the reverse, though -- and that is where this division comes from. If people like you would just accept that not everyone can fit your cookie-cutter image, these social divisions would cease to exist.


However I am also seeing that this individualism is diminishing the stability and security that I have seen before.

More specifically, this individuality scares the shit out of you, as does anything progressive.

My advice to you is to use your money to buy yourself a boat, take your conservative family, and sail for Antarctica. There you can live out your conservative fantasies in comfort and security, and leave the rest of us to pursue our individuality. You are a dying breed, my friend.

[Idola Mentis]

Um, skipping the interrogiation and answering on the topic...

I think I'll use a historical example to make my position clear. Or, I hope, clearer than in the Stormfront thread.

The norse had a complex set of laws, set in poetry and remembered by people called "lawsayers". These laws were applied at regular parliament-courts called Tings. We still have these Tings, though in a perverted form. There's still a concept called "Tingfreden", meaning something like the "sanctity of the council". That is, restrictions on what you could bring before the council.

You could come to the council with complaints and demands for reparations. But you could not demand violence. You could not bring weapons. Breaking the peace of the place of council was a terrible blasphemy; a violator risked being declared outlaw, putting him on the same legal footing as a wild animal.

Why? Because blowing up the council is not a valid political statement. It's an act of war. A council which allows itself to be abolished is no council. A council which allows itself to be used to enact violence on its participants is an act of violence in itself. (yes, most modern parliaments and courts violate this condition) Thus the council could only impose fines and remove legal protection, not formally impose imprisonment, bodily punishment or death sentences.

Relevance to this discussion? Fascist ideology by its nature intends to break the peace of the council. Its declared intention is to use the council to enact violence, use force to get their way in it, or simply abolish it altogether. This does not only transfer to formal councils, like parliaments, courts, debates, forums, but to simple discussions. Fascism has no place in it, can't be negotiated with, and can't be tolerated. We can disagree on many rules, but if we can't agree on the rules which keeps a space for negotiation open, there can be nothing but war.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Omega+March 19, 2007 01:09 pm--> (Omega @ March 19, 2007 01:09 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 01:50 am


the information age IS. every child in the first world now can select his or her belief system from all those ever in existence. why imitate your parents if your parents are miserable? this is liberation, what you envision are shackles. and the irony is this: you yourself are a gem of postmodernism, a true product of the information age, a striking example of individualism because you pine for conformity!

HEHEHEHEH! :) Well put and I would have to agree. Yeah…I am old fashioned…therefore a misfit today. I would have been quite acceptable prior to the 1960´s though. Ahya…anyway…

One has to ask, with everybody doing their own thing, is it bringing them happiness? Is it bringing society closer together or dividing it further?

Take for instance divorce. I can only remember one family in the entire neighborhood that got a divorce. What is the divorce rate today? Relationships now seem to have taken on a “disposable” characteristic.

Also, how many people today are going to see psychologists compared to the 1970´s?

You mention liberation and what I envision are shackles. Perhaps for some but for others not. If you do not approve of “Conduct XY” and a law is passed making “Conduct XY” illegal are you going to feel relieved or shackled?

You are correct that the information age "IS" and people are being more individual than in the prior decades. However I am also seeing that this individualism is diminishing the stability and security that I have seen before. [/b]
The Dovorce rate is horrible, you know what the number one cause of Divorce is? Money problems.


You are right, but social conservatism and capitalism go very well together, as capitalism helps enforce the hierarchy on which social conservatism is built.

Not necessarily, depends what type of Social Conservatism your talking about, if your talking about the Conservative that believes in mutual respect, respect for elders, community care and the such not necessarily, perhaps if your talking about the type that supports Line of power, such as a strong Government, and an Aristocracy, then yeah.

Back to Omega, making Laws on Moral issues, no matter how harmful to society they are is kind of like the same thing as a Walfare state, all it does is treat the symptoms, and barely that, not the cause. If you thnk the divorce rate is hurting society, which it is, is making it harder to divorce legally going to make it better? No, Laws don't change attitudes. Plus then you get to the issue of, does the State, or any body have a right to impose morality on other people, first of all, when it does, it stops being a Moral issue. The only thing we can do, that we have a right to do, is to abolish a system that creates poverty, oppression, and encouriges a Materialistic, anti-Social mentality, i.e. Capitalism.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:41 pm
What business is that of yours? Relationships are between two people -- nobody cares whether or not you think that's okay or not.


The only people dividing it further are people like you, who ignorantly cling to their traditional social views and oppose anything that goes against your personal "grain". You don't see people in "unstable relationships" running around *****ing about people who have been married for 50 years, nor do you see gay couples running around complaining about straight people. You do see the reverse, though -- and that is where this division comes from. If people like you would just accept that not everyone can fit your cookie-cutter image, these social divisions would cease to exist.


However I am also seeing that this individualism is diminishing the stability and security that I have seen before.

More specifically, this individuality scares the shit out of you, as does anything progressive.

My advice to you is to use your money to buy yourself a boat, take your conservative family, and sail for Antarctica. There you can live out your conservative fantasies in comfort and security, and leave the rest of us to pursue our individuality. You are a dying breed, my friend.
It is his business because he cares for people, bad relationships make bad families, which hurt children, good relationships make good societies, its his business the same way its your business worrying about sweatshop workers being exploited in China, obviously I'm not saying he has any right to impose his will on anything, but wanting to change the situation, of coarse.

I don't think this guy is saying everyone should fin into his cookie-cutter image, I think he's more worried about a Society lacking respect, saying that a healthy relationship, and a good social conciences is good for society is not putting people into a cookie-cutter image, you'd be hardpressed to find a person that would argue that being a selfish asshole and not having any stable relationships is healthy.

Of course be could take his family nad live in Antartica, but also us Socialists could also go to antartica and make our own little utopia there as well.

I think some people in the Left should be a little less preachy, which is what some of us Come off as unfortunately.

[ichneumon]

You are correct that the information age "IS" and people are being more individual than in the prior decades. However I am also seeing that this individualism is diminishing the stability and security that I have seen before.

consider: Confucianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism)

Confucius thought that the individual was the greatest threat to society, and that individualism as linked to the growth in technology. He also believed that social class structure should be replaced with a meritocracy.

still, the thing is done. we are becoming a society of individuals. it is radically different thing from anything that has ever existed in the past.



Of course be could take his family nad live in Antartica, but also us Socialists could also go to antartica and make our own little utopia there as well.

ASAP

[RGacky3]

Let me talk about little bit about Social Conservatism in a Socialist Society.

The Zapatistas, collectively decided to band Booze, a ground up decision, why? Was it because Booze hurt production? No, Was it because Alcaholic drinks would bring the Ranceros back in power? No, it was because Alcahol (which the Indians are very much affected by) was hurting families, causing domestic violence and families were hurting, The Zapatista revolution was about the land, but you know what else it was? Preserving their way of life, their traditions, their language, their religion, their Values.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 01:41 pm
Yes, economic and social philosophies differ. Essentially you are saying that you are an economic centrist and a social conservative, from what I've read. Guess who else could describe themselves as that? Hitler.


Relationships now seem to have taken on a “disposable” characteristic.

What business is that of yours? Relationships are between two people -- nobody cares whether or not you think that's okay or not.


Is it bringing society closer together or dividing it further?

The only people dividing it further are people like you, who ignorantly cling to their traditional social views and oppose anything that goes against your personal "grain". You don't see people in "unstable relationships" running around *****ing about people who have been married for 50 years, nor do you see gay couples running around complaining about straight people. You do see the reverse, though -- and that is where this division comes from. If people like you would just accept that not everyone can fit your cookie-cutter image, these social divisions would cease to exist.


However I am also seeing that this individualism is diminishing the stability and security that I have seen before.

More specifically, this individuality scares the shit out of you, as does anything progressive.

My advice to you is to use your money to buy yourself a boat, take your conservative family, and sail for Antarctica. There you can live out your conservative fantasies in comfort and security, and leave the rest of us to pursue our individuality. You are a dying breed, my friend.
Mr. RNK,

I read through your post a couple of times. I attribute the content and the tone to one of two things or a combination of both.

The first is that you are responding to a conservative and therefore anything I write is immediately a target for attack. So what you have written is just a reaction to me personally and not REALLY how you feel…and I hope that this is the case.

The second is that you have the following attitude “I am an Individual and I will do what I want to, when I want to and how I want to and I do not care if anyone likes it or not!” I have seen this attitude in people before and if this is the case then

A: I feel sorry for you.

and

B: I would not want to associate with you.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:06 pm
Let me talk about little bit about Social Conservatism in a Socialist Society.

The Zapatistas, collectively decided to band Booze, a ground up decision, why? Was it because Booze hurt production? No, Was it because Alcaholic drinks would bring the Ranceros back in power? No, it was because Alcahol (which the Indians are very much affected by) was hurting families, causing domestic violence and families were hurting, The Zapatista revolution was about the land, but you know what else it was? Preserving their way of life, their traditions, their language, their religion, their Values.
Here is a good example of what I was saying earlier about if a law was passed against “Conduct XY”. I do not like the mess that alcohol makes in society and I do not drink. Do I find a law like this to be “shackling” ?Not in the least. Do I find it to be relieving? Not only would I be relieved I would be rejoicing!

I say cheers to the Zapatistas on this decision and toast them with a glass of buttermilk!

I really like buttermilk.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:23 pm


Also, can you outline your economic ideology? I know you say you do not like capitalism, but you must realise that when we (and most people today) say capitalism we do not mean just laissez-faire capitalism, we simply mean a system which is based on concept of private ownership of the means of production.
My economic ideology:

I believe that a good economic policy should be able to utilize the surplus production for the advancement of its citizens and also in the process preserve and nurture the creativity and initiative of the individual.

As a beginning model I would use the “Social” economies like we see in Norway, Sweden and Germany. In these systems there are certain benefits that the citizens enjoy such as health care, free education, unemployment benefits, paid leave from work for a new baby…etc. They are good ideas.

However these systems need to be adjusted a bit because in their present form they not only allow for abuse but also they are not as economically attractive as they could be for new investment. This is where the role of the government comes in.

I see the role of the government in this area as the following:

1) To provide security and be a stabilizing force in the system.

2) Seeing that the surplus is applied for the advancement of the people

3) To prevent abuse of the system

There is the outline. I did not go into detail as far as what I feel the government should do in order to achieve these goals because this is just an outline.

If you would like me to explain further I would be happy to.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:50 pm
The second is that you have the following attitude “I am an Individual and I will do what I want to, when I want to and how I want to and I do not care if anyone likes it or not!” I have seen this attitude in people before and if this is the case then

A: I feel sorry for you.

and

B: I would not want to associate with you.
Now this is a very worrying view, as the people who espouse it are extremely dishonest. As you illustrate later on, and I will go into how, you are essentially for limiting the freedom of people to do things that you personally find distasteful. I suspect that you dislike, for example, drug use - despite the fact that the only concrete and actual harm done is to the user. If I go to a friends house and, for whatever reason, we decide to take Amphetamines how has his neighbour suffered in a tangible way? Or what about this, someone chooses to indulge in a series of short-term, low commitment relationships how are you harmed in a tangible way?

Whether or not you like the way someone acts is entirely irrelevant if they are not causing any actual harm. I personally dislike many behaviours but I will tolerate any that do not harm people directly and tangibly. So I do not tolerate fascist scum because they intimidate, attack and verbally harass people but I will tolerate people who get drunk and vomit out in the street because aside from being slightly disgusted no one is harmed.

Also I really doubt RNK gives a shit if you would associate with him or not, considering you're a bit of an arse.


Here is a good example of what I was saying earlier about if a law was passed against “Conduct XY”. I do not like the mess that alcohol makes in society and I do not drink. Do I find a law like this to be “shackling” ?Not in the least. Do I find it to be relieving? Not only would I be relieved I would be rejoicing! here is a hypothetical for you. Imagine there was something you enjoyed doing that could feasibly be banned by your "perfect" government. All the "evidence" shows that it "destroys" communities*, breaks up families** and so on, would you think you were being shackled then? Or is it only things that you personally don't like that should be banned?

* Please define "community" and explain how it can be "destroyed" by people being individual rather than conformist.

** Please explain all the tangible benefits of growing up in a traditional family over any other kind, with any evidence you happen to have and then explain any potential drawbacks of a "broken family". Also explain why Marital tension is better than separate living.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:06 am
Let me talk about little bit about Social Conservatism in a Socialist Society.

The Zapatistas, collectively decided to band Booze, a ground up decision, why? Was it because Booze hurt production? No, Was it because Alcaholic drinks would bring the Ranceros back in power? No, it was because Alcahol (which the Indians are very much affected by) was hurting families, causing domestic violence and families were hurting, The Zapatista revolution was about the land, but you know what else it was? Preserving their way of life, their traditions, their language, their religion, their Values.
Okay. So wanting to preserve tyhe historic past, preserve one's religion, language, culture ect. can certainly fit within a socialist society?

interesting, very intersting...

[Omega]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 19, 2007 11:05 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 19, 2007 11:05 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 07:50 pm
Now this is a very worrying view, as the people who espouse it are extremely dishonest. As you illustrate later on, and I will go into how, you are essentially for limiting the freedom of people to do things that you personally find distasteful. I suspect that you dislike, for example, drug use - despite the fact that the only concrete and actual harm done is to the user. If I go to a friends house and, for whatever reason, we decide to take Amphetamines how has his neighbour suffered in a tangible way? [/b]
Mr. Jazzratt

To address some of your points.

Yes, I would rather not associate with people who feel that they can do whatever they want and if it is causing a disturbance to those around them they don´t care. I do not see where you see dishonesty in that…it is straight forward.

Yes, you are correct in that I dislike drug use. I mentioned before I do not drink and, by the way, I don´t smoke either.
Concrete and actual harm done is to the user of the drugs? Well, I have seen some of the results of this harm. Like having a fellow that lived in the same building as me OD on heroin…and me being the one who found him with the needle next to him. We got an ambulance there in time and he pulled through but did the same thing about a year or so later and was not so lucky. Let me see…how many people do I know that ODed or drugs played a part in their deaths? Or they used to the point where they are mentally burnt out. But, according to you, these people who are dead now or burnt out were only harming themselves through their drug usage and not anybody else who they interacted with…right?
Never mind going into what some people have done to other people when they were high.

Yes, I have seen the results of drug usage and I do not like the damage it causes, I do not like to see people in the chains of addiction and I do not like to see their lives being slowly drawn out of them.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:05 pm
here is a hypothetical for you. Imagine there was something you enjoyed doing that could feasibly be banned by your "perfect" government. All the "evidence" shows that it "destroys" communities*, breaks up families** and so on, would you think you were being shackled then? Or is it only things that you personally don't like that should be banned?

Mr. Jazzratt,

I understand what you are asking but I am going to answer the question as you have written it.

If I am living under the jurisdiction of my, as you have written, “Perfect” government then, by virtue of it being “My Perfect Government”, it would not enact any legislation that would make me feel shackled.

As to curtailing conduct that is harmful to family and community:

If you see that the conduct you engage in for enjoyment is harming your family and your community you must ask yourself “Which is more important to me…my fun or my family and community?” The way one answers this gives quite a reflection upon ones character.

[Che Guevara 1415]

who knows ?

[RGacky3]

Omega I would be interested in hearing what your objections or your opinion would be on Anarcho-Communism, meaning worker control over what they produce, A Classless Communal Society without Bosses, without Capitalism and without the State. Pretty much Direct Democracy over the economy.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:08 am
Omega I would be interested in hearing what your objections or your opinion would be on Anarcho-Communism, meaning worker control over what they produce, A Classless Communal Society without Bosses, without Capitalism and without the State. Pretty much Direct Democracy over the economy.
Mr. Gacky,

Interesting question. Unfortunately I do not have time to answer it properly. I am going out of town for a couple of days but I will ponder it on the trip and answer on my return.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Jazzratt
Please explain all the tangible benefits of growing up in a traditional family over any other kind, with any evidence you happen to have and then explain any potential drawbacks of a "broken family". Also explain why Marital tension is better than separate living.
Omega- how about addressing this?

Also, you're taking a very, very privileged male perspective. In the past, women were essentially TRAPPED in their marriages, no matter how unhappy, because they couldn't support themselves or because of social constraints. Also, the 'role' women played in your dream society was one of unrewarding, repetitive drudgery. Sorry, but I don't see women going back to that willingly.

And wtf is up with calling people "Mr?" It's just absurd. We're on the internet using nicknames for fuck's sake.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:23 am
Mr. Jazzratt
As M-L said you shouldn't persist with this "mr" nonsense.


To address some of your points.

Yes, I would rather not associate with people who feel that they can do whatever they want and if it is causing a disturbance to those around them they don´t care. I do not see where you see dishonesty in that…it is straight forward. That is not where your dishonesty is, it is in your hatred of everything individual despite you yourself being an individual.


Yes, you are correct in that I dislike drug use. I mentioned before I do not drink and, by the way, I don´t smoke either. COngratulations, your medal is in the post. <_<


Concrete and actual harm done is to the user of the drugs? Well, I have seen some of the results of this harm. Like having a fellow that lived in the same building as me OD on heroin…and me being the one who found him with the needle next to him. We got an ambulance there in time and he pulled through but did the same thing about a year or so later and was not so lucky. Let me see…how many people do I know that ODed or drugs played a part in their deaths? Or they used to the point where they are mentally burnt out. But, according to you, these people who are dead now or burnt out were only harming themselves through their drug usage and not anybody else who they interacted with…right? Yep. You didn&#39;t die or suffer any physical consequences from this other person overdosing on heroin, did you? People will feel bad if someone dies no matter how they die.

Never mind going into what some people have done to other people when they were high. That is dealt with on an entirely different level to drug use/abuse.


Yes, I have seen the results of drug usage and I do not like the damage it causes, I do not like to see people in the chains of addiction and I do not like to see their lives being slowly drawn out of them. Brilliant. You don&#39;t like something therefore it is wrong? Get off your high (excuse the pun, it&#39;s unintentional) horse and provide a more concrete reason beyond personal anecdotes and your own feelings.


I understand what you are asking but I am going to answer the question as you have written it. Then I shall reword it and remove the word "perfect" because you&#39;ve entirely misunderstood what putting inverted commas around a word indicates, either that or you&#39;re just pissing about with semantics to buy time.


As to curtailing conduct that is harmful to family and community:

If you see that the conduct you engage in for enjoyment is harming your family and your community you must ask yourself “Which is more important to me…my fun or my family and community?” The way one answers this gives quite a reflection upon ones character. Define "harm" in the sense you are using it, also define "community". If I am living in a squat with a small collection of political radicals are they not closer to what could be described as my "community" than a deeply reactionary set of families that happen to live in the same arbitrarily defined area?

[back door man]

Yes, I would rather not associate with people who feel that they can do whatever they want and if it is causing a disturbance to those around them they don´t care. I do not see where you see dishonesty in that…it is straight forward.
Where do you draw the line though? Let&#39;s say there&#39;s a family restaurant and a man having dinner decides to light up a cigarette, if the waiter came up to him and asked him to put it out because it caused disturbance to other people, then it&#39;d be fine, but this "people disturb others and don&#39;t care." thing is abused by people like you, to the point where women can&#39;t dress in too "revealing" ways or homosexuals can&#39;t display affection for each other in public.

That&#39;s the only part of your posts i felt compelled to answer, the rest simply confirmed what I thought your ideas were.


And Rgacky, I use the term fascist loosely, in a more according-to-the-dictionary way. Although most racists did support fascist regimes in the world, i.e Republic of China (the pre-Mao one, not Taiwan), Chile &#39;73, Italy &#39;43, etc.

[RGacky3]

I don&#39;t see what the problem is with not wanted to associate with people who feel they can do whatever they want whenever they want not taking into consideration other peoples feelings, we generally call those people assholes, and I don&#39;t like them much either.


That is not where your dishonesty is, it is in your hatred of everything individual despite you yourself being an individual.

Where are you getting this hatred of everything individual? You can&#39;t generalize everything.

I really hope that you guys don&#39;t treat people you meet in person with a different viewpoints as hostile as you do this guy, seriously its embarasing. Then you wonder why so many working class people arn&#39;t at all attracted to Socialist movements, I would hope its not because Socialists are dicks to anyone with different viewpoints on matters. I think you could learn a thing or 2 about some old time conservative manners.

[Zero]

To Omega.


Originally posted by "Omega"+--> ("Omega")Yes, you are correct in that I dislike drug use. I mentioned before I do not drink and, by the way, I don´t smoke either.[/b]Nither do I, lets start a club. =)


Originally posted by "Omega"@
[...] these people who are dead now or burnt out were only harming themselves through their drug usage and not anybody else who they interacted with…right?And what spurred the usage in the first place? Taboo? Social pressure to conform? A mixture? I sincerely doubt that there are people alive who would (without social prompting) abuse addictive drugs. Nither would there be a draw to diffuse these drugs if there was no profit motive. A dealer gets you hooked before he makes you pay, he doesn&#39;t get you hooked "because this stuff is like... whoa..."

Those who forgo education, or &#39;write off&#39; direct education about substances they may or may not abuse in the future don&#39;t constitute a reason to ban these substances, it constitutes a reason to educate, inform, and familiarize the public with the direct harmful effects to the individual user; making the individual "The Decider."

On the most basic of levels, if you tell someone not to do something, what is the first thing they will do?

(Hint: It&#39;s in your bible.)



"Omega"
Yes, I have seen the results of drug usage and I do not like the damage it causes, I do not like to see people in the chains of addiction and I do not like to see their lives being slowly drawn out of them.I feel the same way. However, making choices on how other people live their lives is more than overstepping my bounds.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:08 am
Omega I would be interested in hearing what your objections or your opinion would be on Anarcho-Communism, meaning worker control over what they produce, A Classless Communal Society without Bosses, without Capitalism and without the State. Pretty much Direct Democracy over the economy.
Mr. Gacky,

I am back and I have thought about your question. Here are some things that crossed my mind:

I think worker owned businesses are a good idea. However, if the company is successful and takes on larger and larger jobs, there will be a need to have people whos only job is to set up future contracts for the company and direct it. Sure they can put their suggestions up for a vote that has to be approved by all the workers, but the larger the company gets the more removed they are from the fellows on the shop floor. Would this not be creating something that can be construed as a “managerial class”?

Also, if you are going to have communities trading with each other there needs to be some kind of rules for trading that everybody agrees with. After the rules are voted in, who is responsible for enforcing them and settling disputes that arise about their interpretation?

If you have community members that agree on the basic principals of how things should function I am sure it can work up to a certain size. I think most clubs and organizations can be said to function on this principal. However, I can not envision how large projects can be handled with this system.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:13 am
I don&#39;t see what the problem is with not wanted to associate with people who feel they can do whatever they want whenever they want not taking into consideration other peoples feelings, we generally call those people assholes, and I don&#39;t like them much either.
Actually we tend to only think about that kind of person like that if they&#39;re doing something we don&#39;t like. Most of the rest of the time they seem to be cool and unfettered by social expectations. I think this shows a wonderful hypocrisy: people are free as long as they do what I like.



That is not where your dishonesty is, it is in your hatred of everything individual despite you yourself being an individual.

Where are you getting this hatred of everything individual? You can&#39;t generalize everything. He does not support individualism, he has said that himself. The problem is that he more than likely is not one to advocate the curbing of behaviours which he himself engages in.


I really hope that you guys don&#39;t treat people you meet in person with a different viewpoints as hostile as you do this guy, It depends entirely on the person and the viewpoint.
seriously its embarasing. Then you wonder why so many working class people arn&#39;t at all attracted to Socialist movements, I would hope its not because Socialists are dicks to anyone with different viewpoints on matters. I think you could learn a thing or 2 about some old time conservative manners. Generally socialism is perceived as being the domain of guilty middle class pricks or Soviet apologists, neither of which are particularly good images and don&#39;t get me started on the ideas of anarchism. Also the way you chose to end your post is very telling of the kind of person you are <_<

[ichneumon]

I really hope that you guys don&#39;t treat people you meet in person with a different viewpoints as hostile as you do this guy, seriously its embarasing. Then you wonder why so many working class people arn&#39;t at all attracted to Socialist movements, I would hope its not because Socialists are dicks to anyone with different viewpoints on matters. I think you could learn a thing or 2 about some old time conservative manners.

i&#39;ve wondered about this myself. most far leftists seem to be mean spirited, rude and nasty. smart, i&#39;ll give you that. whereas hippie/ecogreenies seem to be nice, kind, happy and considerate (and somewhat goofy).

really - if you are nasty and unhappy, whatever worldview you&#39;re selling, i don&#39;t want it. it obviously doesn&#39;t work. i don&#39;t care how logical or rational it is, if it makes you miserable, or you are a miserable person who has/needs this worldview, it&#39;s dysfunctional and should be considered with care.

this is not totally irrelevant. the far left attracts people who are not exactly mentally stable. what&#39;s up with that?

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:05 pm
Please explain all the tangible benefits of growing up in a traditional family over any other kind, with any evidence you happen to have and then explain any potential drawbacks of a "broken family". Also explain why Marital tension is better than separate living.


A traditional family compared to „Any other kind“. You mention a broken family…do you mean traditional compared to broken family?…or a polygamist family like some Mormons?

As far as potential draw backs of a broken family where do I start with this one? Perhaps an example. The one couple that got divorced in the neighbourhood. There were 6 boys in the family. The first two were finished with high school and the third was just finishing and moving on to college when the father moved out. I think one became a doctor, the other a dentist and the other is also some kind of professional trade. They were several years older than me so I did not hang around with them. However the remaining three ended up on a different path through life.



After the father left we in the neighbourhood could here the kids yelling more at the mother. This never took place when the father was there. Also, they would never listen to her and she could not control them. Shortly after # 4 graduated and went to college the trouble started with him. I heard that he was messing up in college but some how got through. He then was not successful in his career and also got into some big time trouble for breaking into a house. We did not hear to much about him after that. He was a bit older than me also but another fellow in the neighbourhood said that he did not want to associate with him anymore because he needed to clean up his act and was not making a positive effort to do so after being given a lot of chances.

Son # 5 is lucky he graduated high school and I do not know what happened to him. He could be in jail again. He got involved in drugs and burned himself out. The drugs are controlling him.

Son #6 is dead. He got really drunk one night, flopped in bed and then vomited in his sleep. The problem was that he was laying face up and it went down his throat and he choked to death. He had a big history with drinking and drugs also.

One time when I was back in the neighbourhood and talking with one of the fellows I grew up with the subject of this family came up. One of the things he pointed out was that the first three sons that grew up when the father was there made something of themselves while the other three sons that were still growing up with out the father being there made a mess of themselves.

That is just one example. I have seen quite a few articles written over time that discuss this subject that mention the, as you put it, “Potential Drawbacks” of a broken family. However, I think the drawbacks should be quite obvious. Can you think of any?

Why marital tension is better than separate living. Usually it is not. However, why did the two people get married in the first place? Also, are their kids involved? That is a reason to keep thing together…to a point. I do not in any way support staying in an abusive relationship. The man or the woman can turn out to be abusive. If that is the case then I am the first one to say get out of the relationship.

Rather than having to worry about a marriage breaking up, I would suggest more caution and restraint in choosing ones spouse in the first place.

[Omega]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 20, 2007 12:16 pm--> (Jazzratt &#064; March 20, 2007 12:16 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 12:23 am




Concrete and actual harm done is to the user of the drugs? Well, I have seen some of the results of this harm. Like having a fellow that lived in the same building as me OD on heroin…and me being the one who found him with the needle next to him. We got an ambulance there in time and he pulled through but did the same thing about a year or so later and was not so lucky. Let me see…how many people do I know that ODed or drugs played a part in their deaths? Or they used to the point where they are mentally burnt out. But, according to you, these people who are dead now or burnt out were only harming themselves through their drug usage and not anybody else who they interacted with…right?

Yep. You didn&#39;t die or suffer any physical consequences from this other person overdosing on heroin, did you? People will feel bad if someone dies no matter how they die.
[/b]

Did you ever hear of the groups called AL-ANON and NAR-ANON? They are support groups for not for alcoholics and drug users but rather for their families and friends who have to deal with their drinking and drug usage also. They are groups for dealing with the mental and emotional abuse that they have to go through because someone they care about is an alcohlic or a drug user.

Here are the links to their webpages:

http://www.al-anon.alateen.org/

http://nar-anon.org/index.html

May I suggest that you visit these sites and see what they have to say about how others are effect by substance abuse.

[Omega]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 20, 2007 12:16 pm--> (Jazzratt &#064; March 20, 2007 12:16 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 12:23 am

Yes, I have seen the results of drug usage and I do not like the damage it causes, I do not like to see people in the chains of addiction and I do not like to see their lives being slowly drawn out of them. Brilliant. You don&#39;t like something therefore it is wrong? Get off your high (excuse the pun, it&#39;s unintentional) horse and provide a more concrete reason beyond personal anecdotes and your own feelings.

[/b]

Where in ANY post did I say something was WRONG? I do not recall ever using that word. You said it not me. Read what I wrote.

I said:
"I have seen the results of drug usage and the damage it causes and I do not like it."

Are you telling me that I am not allowed to form my opinion about something after I have had to deal with it?

If that is the case...WOW&#33;

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:23 pm
Yes, you are correct in that I dislike drug use. I mentioned before I do not drink and, by the way, I don´t smoke either.

Well, aren’t you just the cutest thing.


Concrete and actual harm done is to the user of the drugs? Well, I have seen some of the results of this harm. Like having a fellow that lived in the same building as me OD on heroin…and me being the one who found him with the needle next to him. We got an ambulance there in time and he pulled through but did the same thing about a year or so later and was not so lucky. Let me see…how many people do I know that ODed or drugs played a part in their deaths? Or they used to the point where they are mentally burnt out. But, according to you, these people who are dead now or burnt out were only harming themselves through their drug usage and not anybody else who they interacted with…right?

Overdosing on drugs, dying, and being mentally "burnt out," by drugs only affects them the individual, and has no real or concrete effects on society, or the immediate community, in that the negative effects caused by counter-productive drugs use, didn&#39;t harm, society in general, or his/her neighbors, other than the fact that someone died, which people die all the time, so would propose laws for people to be immortal, so people wouldn&#39;t have to witness death? As for overdosing, many people go into diabetic shock, and the like, were a ambulance is needed, so there isn&#39;t that much difference. As for being mentally burnt out, many people get, burnt out, due to stress, strife, depression, and the like, so again there isn&#39;t much difference.

A lot, of the problem is the fact that drugs can&#39;t be research or readily enjoyed, so we can&#39;t figure out ways to make them better and safer for the user.


Never mind going into what some people have done to other people when they were high.

So people don&#39;t do the same behavior when they are sober? The only reason criminal activity happens with drug users is due to the drug capitalistic black market, or drug culture, which doesn&#39;t have to exist, and therefore if drugs were legal, and people found ways to indulge safely this wouldn&#39;t be a problem.


Yes, I have seen the results of drug usage and I do not like the damage it causes, I do not like to see people in the chains of addiction and I do not like to see their lives being slowly drawn out of them.

This is bullshit, as I said in one thread, there is counter-productive drug indulgence, where the user, abuses the drug, and is unhealthy, and it’s generally destructive to the individual, and there is productive drug indulgence, where the user, uses the drug in a safe, moderated, and healthy way, and gains the benefits; drug indulgence doesn’t necessarily equal abuse.

I smoke, I drink, I use drugs, all in a healthy, moderated, way and it doesn&#39;t and hasn&#39;t affected my life in any negative way what so ever, nor the people around me, and I am not wrapped in drug culture or violence either; so much for your stereotypes.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Omega+March 22, 2007 10:10 pm--> (Omega @ March 22, 2007 10:10 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 11:05 pm
Please explain all the tangible benefits of growing up in a traditional family over any other kind, with any evidence you happen to have and then explain any potential drawbacks of a "broken family". Also explain why Marital tension is better than separate living.


A traditional family compared to „Any other kind“. You mention a broken family…do you mean traditional compared to broken family?…or a polygamist family like some Mormons? [/b]
Mormons are not the only proponents of polygamy. I am of course referring to any non traditional family structure (traditional here being defined as the male dominated 1 Husband, 1 Wife, N Kids.).


As far as potential draw backs of a broken family where do I start with this one? Perhaps an example. The one couple that got divorced in the neighbourhood. There were 6 boys in the family. The first two were finished with high school and the third was just finishing and moving on to college when the father moved out. I think one became a doctor, the other a dentist and the other is also some kind of professional trade. They were several years older than me so I did not hang around with them. However the remaining three ended up on a different path through life. This is not evidence it is an anecdote.


After the father left we in the neighbourhood could here the kids yelling more at the mother. This never took place when the father was there. Also, they would never listen to her and she could not control them. Shortly after # 4 graduated and went to college the trouble started with him. I heard that he was messing up in college but some how got through. He then was not successful in his career and also got into some big time trouble for breaking into a house. We did not hear to much about him after that. He was a bit older than me also but another fellow in the neighbourhood said that he did not want to associate with him anymore because he needed to clean up his act and was not making a positive effort to do so after being given a lot of chances. How terrible. It still isn&#39;t much more than an anecdote. Also I think it&#39;s rather irresponsible to blame this person&#39;s misfortune on their not living in a nuclear family.


Son # 5 is lucky he graduated high school and I do not know what happened to him. He could be in jail again. He got involved in drugs and burned himself out. The drugs are controlling him.

Son #6 is dead. He got really drunk one night, flopped in bed and then vomited in his sleep. The problem was that he was laying face up and it went down his throat and he choked to death. He had a big history with drinking and drugs also. Both these people chose to take drugs or drink heavily. Most people are told "drugs will fuck you up" or something similar when they are young, they choose whether or not to listen to this advice.


One time when I was back in the neighbourhood and talking with one of the fellows I grew up with the subject of this family came up. One of the things he pointed out was that the first three sons that grew up when the father was there made something of themselves while the other three sons that were still growing up with out the father being there made a mess of themselves. I could also make the observation that the other three sons were younger: does this mean that being a younger sibling makes you more prone to "failure"?


That is just one example. I have seen quite a few articles written over time that discuss this subject that mention the, as you put it, “Potential Drawbacks” of a broken family. However, I think the drawbacks should be quite obvious. Can you think of any? Not really, aside from "undue strain" on one of the parents. I do not subscribe to any "strong father figure is required" type bullshit.


Why marital tension is better than separate living. Usually it is not. However, why did the two people get married in the first place? Well most people, I assume - and feel free to correct me if I am wrong - but most people marry because they are in love.
Also, are their kids involved? That is a reason to keep thing together…to a point. No it isn&#39;t. If you do not love the person you married there is no reason to remain married.
I do not in any way support staying in an abusive relationship. The man or the woman can turn out to be abusive. If that is the case then I am the first one to say get out of the relationship. Well, that is the view of most reasonable people. I have yet to met someone who actually advocates remaining in an abusive relationship.


Rather than having to worry about a marriage breaking up, I would suggest more caution and restraint in choosing ones spouse in the first place. People change over time. It is impossible to judge how you will feel about someone five or ten years down the line. You can make an educated guess, but there is no problem with getting it wrong.


Did you ever hear of the groups called AL-ANON and NAR-ANON? They are support groups for not for alcoholics and drug users but rather for their families and friends who have to deal with their drinking and drug usage also. They are groups for dealing with the mental and emotional abuse that they have to go through because someone they care about is an alcohlic or a drug user.

Here are the links to their webpages:

http://www.al-anon.alateen.org/

http://nar-anon.org/index.html

May I suggest that you visit these sites and see what they have to say about how others are effect by substance abuse. Emotional effects of things are impossible to judge and not always consistent. What may cause one person to become depressed may not even register with another person. Any policy on drugs or alcohol therefore cannot be based on the fluctuating reactions of people that know the user but instead must focus on concrete effects on the user of the drug. I am not saying anyone necessarily should take certain drugs but I certainly would never advocate a "right wing" or "conservative" society where they are prevented from doing so.


Where in ANY point did I say something was WRONG. I do not recall ever using that word. You said it not me. Read what I wrote. Semantics. You yourself have declared support for a restrictive form of government that prevents things that "cause harm" to &#39;communities&#39; or "break up families" or whatever shite it was. I extrapolated from this that you thought that drug use should be legislated against and therfore thought it to be wrong.


Are you telling me that I am not allowed to form my opinion about something after I have had to deal with it? Of course not. Form all the fucking opinions you like, I&#39;m not the one advocating stifling individuality am I? What I am saying is that whether or not you are right in your opinion you should not be stopping others from acting in ways you may find distasteful or advocating a system of government that would do such.

[Omega]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 22, 2007 11:29 pm--> (Jazzratt &#064; March 22, 2007 11:29 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 10:10 pm


Did you ever hear of the groups called AL-ANON and NAR-ANON? They are support groups for not for alcoholics and drug users but rather for their families and friends who have to deal with their drinking and drug usage also. They are groups for dealing with the mental and emotional abuse that they have to go through because someone they care about is an alcohlic or a drug user.

Here are the links to their webpages:

http://www.al-anon.alateen.org/

http://nar-anon.org/index.html

May I suggest that you visit these sites and see what they have to say about how others are effect by substance abuse. Emotional effects of things are impossible to judge and not always consistent. What may cause one person to become depressed may not even register with another person. Any policy on drugs or alcohol therefore cannot be based on the fluctuating reactions of people that know the user but instead must focus on concrete effects on the user of the drug. I am not saying anyone necessarily should take certain drugs but I certainly would never advocate a "right wing" or "conservative" society where they are prevented from doing so.


[/b]
Hmmm...did you even bother going to these webpages and reading a bit of what these people had to say?

There are people forming world wide organizations about problems arising from drug abuse that you just dismiss as not being a problem because, accorning to you, drugs only effect the user. So then why do these organizations exist?

Did you look at the Nar-Anon webpage? There are chapters in all 50 states including the District of Columbia...and 23 countries around the world with people that say that a drug user in there life has caused them problems.

But will you recognize this?...no.

I see how you are behaving on this issue. No matter what is presented to you, if it contradicts what you believe then you will refuse to recognize it.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:11 pm
I am back and I have thought about your question. Here are some things that crossed my mind:

I think worker owned businesses are a good idea. However, if the company is successful and takes on larger and larger jobs, there will be a need to have people whos only job is to set up future contracts for the company and direct it. Sure they can put their suggestions up for a vote that has to be approved by all the workers, but the larger the company gets the more removed they are from the fellows on the shop floor. Would this not be creating something that can be construed as a “managerial class”?

Also, if you are going to have communities trading with each other there needs to be some kind of rules for trading that everybody agrees with. After the rules are voted in, who is responsible for enforcing them and settling disputes that arise about their interpretation?

If you have community members that agree on the basic principals of how things should function I am sure it can work up to a certain size. I think most clubs and organizations can be said to function on this principal. However, I can not envision how large projects can be handled with this system.
I don&#39;t mean worker owned businesses in a Capitalist stystem, of coarse when you have competition and all that type of stuff worker owned businesses are at a competitive disadvantive, I&#39;m talking about Society in General, or a Community, An Anarchist Community, you worry about certain social issues and thats fine, but I think the impact Capitalism has had on Society is much worse.

In an Anarchist society a company is successful if it takes care of the needs of the community, not make a profit. As far as trading goes, sure it may be a little harder, but a lot of it will be not neccessary, if its something personal (not neccessary for the community) the individual would be free to trade it, if it involves the community obviously they would all have a say.

My point is this, making the argument that things may be more difficult, meaning more involved isn&#39;t really the argument, a dictatorship makes desicions very fast and with great ease, but its still wrong, the same with Capitalism, things might be easier, but its harmful and wrong. its a question of economic freedom and equality, or economic tyranny and injustice.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:21 am

My point is this, making the argument that things may be more difficult, meaning more involved isn&#39;t really the argument, a dictatorship makes desicions very fast and with great ease, but its still wrong, the same with Capitalism, things might be easier, but its harmful and wrong. its a question of economic freedom and equality, or economic tyranny and injustice.


I have heard people here talking about a system where there is no money. Is that also true in this system?

I tried to envision several models of the system that you talk about but I am not meeting with much success. Here seems to be the sticking point...after reaching some point of complexity some sort of central rule making organization come into the picture...this can be constured as a government and it is not allowed. So this puts a complexity limit on things.

That is a sticking point in all the systems I can imagine.

[Omega]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 22, 2007 11:29 pm--> (Jazzratt &#064; March 22, 2007 11:29 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:10 pm

Where in ANY point did I say something was WRONG. I do not recall ever using that word. You said it not me. Read what I wrote. Semantics. You yourself have declared support for a restrictive form of government that prevents things that "cause harm" to &#39;communities&#39; or "break up families" or whatever shite it was. I extrapolated from this that you thought that drug use should be legislated against and therfore thought it to be wrong.[/b]

I purposely did not use the word “Wrong” because of the direction that it would take the argument in.
How about just sticking to what I write and not, as you put it, “extrapolating”?


[email protected] 22, 2007 11:29 pm


Are you telling me that I am not allowed to form my opinion about something after I have had to deal with it? Of course not. Form all the fucking opinions you like, I&#39;m not the one advocating stifling individuality am I? What I am saying is that whether or not you are right in your opinion you should not be stopping others from acting in ways you may find distasteful or advocating a system of government that would do such.

We are not going to make any headway in this issue.

I will present you with facts and you will belittle them or dismiss them entirely. We really can not argue about weather these things happen or not. It is a fact…they do. However, your opinion about these facts differs greatly from mine.

It seems that you are advocating a society where personal freedom is the highest good and
curtailment of this in the slightest is the greatest evil.

It sounds too chaotic and unpredictable for me. But, if you are comfortable with these sort of things than you are.

Here is a question for you. If you had a place where you could go and live with others who share you view on individualism in society would you go and live there and leave the more “conservative” people to themselves?

Another question: Why do you feel it is necessary to use profanity in your posts?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Omega+March 23, 2007 08:12 am--> (Omega @ March 23, 2007 08:12 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:29 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:10 pm

Where in ANY point did I say something was WRONG. I do not recall ever using that word. You said it not me. Read what I wrote. Semantics. You yourself have declared support for a restrictive form of government that prevents things that "cause harm" to &#39;communities&#39; or "break up families" or whatever shite it was. I extrapolated from this that you thought that drug use should be legislated against and therfore thought it to be wrong.

I purposely did not use the word “Wrong” because of the direction that it would take the argument in.
How about just sticking to what I write and not, as you put it, “extrapolating”? [/b]
All right. It just seemed rather bloody logical, given what information I already had.



[email protected] 22, 2007 11:29 pm


Are you telling me that I am not allowed to form my opinion about something after I have had to deal with it? Of course not. Form all the fucking opinions you like, I&#39;m not the one advocating stifling individuality am I? What I am saying is that whether or not you are right in your opinion you should not be stopping others from acting in ways you may find distasteful or advocating a system of government that would do such.

We are not going to make any headway in this issue.

I will present you with facts and you will belittle them or dismiss them entirely. We really can not argue about weather these things happen or not. It is a fact…they do. However, your opinion about these facts differs greatly from mine. Right. As you have illustrated that it will be pointless I shan&#39;t continue on this line of argument either.


It seems that you are advocating a society where personal freedom is the highest good and
curtailment of this in the slightest is the greatest evil. I don&#39;t like words like "good" or "evil" but, yes I would advocate something like that.


It sounds too chaotic and unpredictable for me. But, if you are comfortable with these sort of things than you are. Fair enough.


Here is a question for you. If you had a place where you could go and live with others who share you view on individualism in society would you go and live there and leave the more “conservative” people to themselves? As long as the conservative "enclave" allowed others to leave freely and join freely (provided, of course that they follow the conservative laws.), then naturally I would.


Another question: Why do you feel it is necessary to use profanity in your posts? Because I&#39;m usually annoyed and tired when I start typing. I also love profanity it&#39;s a very satisfying part of the English vocabulary.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:44 pm

Here is a question for you. If you had a place where you could go and live with others who share you view on individualism in society would you go and live there and leave the more “conservative” people to themselves? As long as the conservative "enclave" allowed others to leave freely and join freely (provided, of course that they follow the conservative laws.), then naturally I would.



O.K.

All those who do not like the strict legislation against drug usage, intoxication and other behaviour considered Illegal in Omegaland are free to emigrate unhindered and proceed to JRland to pursue their happiness.

Next theme…

I put some other posts up and I would like to hear your opinion on the issues. Especially on the renewable energy question because this deals with the organization of large amounts of resources in a de-centralized society. The only way that I can possibly think of for this to happen if there is no permanent central government is the formation of an ad hoc committee to direct the proceedings. Member Demogorgon a small centralized government would be needed for a while.

How do you see a project like this being realized in a de-centrailzed system?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:51 pm
Next theme…

I put some other posts up and I would like to hear your opinion on the issues. Especially on the renewable energy question because this deals with the organization of large amounts of resources in a de-centralized society. The only way that I can possibly think of for this to happen if there is no permanent central government is the formation of an ad hoc committee to direct the proceedings. Member Demogorgon a small centralized government would be needed for a while.

How do you see a project like this being realized in a de-centrailzed system?
Interesting choice of theme, as it&#39;s something I have often argued about with a few people on this website. As a staunch technocrat I can see that a large central government is not required in the running of a large centralised infrastructure - essential maintainance can be done on an ad-hoc basis through any engineers that happen to be available at the time, resource allocation can be handled by both teirs of the technocratic government with the scientific tier calculating how much can be allocated, and where, whilst the (directly) democratic wing decides where it should be allocated.

Although the idea of ad hoc committees is not one that should be ruled out either, depending on the situation.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Omega+March 23, 2007 07:09 am--> (Omega @ March 23, 2007 07:09 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:21 am

My point is this, making the argument that things may be more difficult, meaning more involved isn&#39;t really the argument, a dictatorship makes desicions very fast and with great ease, but its still wrong, the same with Capitalism, things might be easier, but its harmful and wrong. its a question of economic freedom and equality, or economic tyranny and injustice.


I have heard people here talking about a system where there is no money. Is that also true in this system?

I tried to envision several models of the system that you talk about but I am not meeting with much success. Here seems to be the sticking point...after reaching some point of complexity some sort of central rule making organization come into the picture...this can be constured as a government and it is not allowed. So this puts a complexity limit on things.

That is a sticking point in all the systems I can imagine. [/b]
Your looking at the issue in terms of &#39;systems&#39; perse, Anarchism is&#39;nt really about setting up systems in the way Marxists, Democratic Socialists or Utopians do. Its more of a gradual thing, the way I see it is that if workers gain control of their industries, and people gain control of their communities, eventually money would become pretty much useless. I&#39;m not saying that as soon as a revolution happens, say in the form of a General strike, and the workers take over industries all of a sudden money will be gone, but more over time.

When Communities are run by the people in them, eventually the need for a central government will be gone, historically governments came about not by neccessity, not by any social-contract, but by violence and wealth control. Things are made more complicated by a centralized government and centralized wealth control, because these entities have to manage huge issues without really being part of it.

Now I&#39;m not saying that in an Anarchist system the&#39;re won&#39;t be people who make desicions that effect other people, but what I am saying is that those desicions will only be valid if the the people they effect say it is. In a Machine shop they&#39;re may be a guy that organises everything, but he would be 100% accountable to the people he&#39;s organising, and if he tries to take advantage of anything, the workers would have complete democratic power to take away his authority.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by RGacky3+March 23, 2007 12:21 am--> (RGacky3 @ March 23, 2007 12:21 am)
[email protected] 22, 2007 09:11 pm
I am back and I have thought about your question. Here are some things that crossed my mind:

I think worker owned businesses are a good idea. However, if the company is successful and takes on larger and larger jobs, there will be a need to have people whos only job is to set up future contracts for the company and direct it. Sure they can put their suggestions up for a vote that has to be approved by all the workers, but the larger the company gets the more removed they are from the fellows on the shop floor. Would this not be creating something that can be construed as a “managerial class”?

Also, if you are going to have communities trading with each other there needs to be some kind of rules for trading that everybody agrees with. After the rules are voted in, who is responsible for enforcing them and settling disputes that arise about their interpretation?

If you have community members that agree on the basic principals of how things should function I am sure it can work up to a certain size. I think most clubs and organizations can be said to function on this principal. However, I can not envision how large projects can be handled with this system.
I don&#39;t mean worker owned businesses in a Capitalist stystem, of coarse when you have competition and all that type of stuff worker owned businesses are at a competitive disadvantive, I&#39;m talking about Society in General, or a Community, An Anarchist Community, you worry about certain social issues and thats fine, but I think the impact Capitalism has had on Society is much worse.

In an Anarchist society a company is successful if it takes care of the needs of the community, not make a profit. As far as trading goes, sure it may be a little harder, but a lot of it will be not neccessary, if its something personal (not neccessary for the community) the individual would be free to trade it, if it involves the community obviously they would all have a say.

My point is this, making the argument that things may be more difficult, meaning more involved isn&#39;t really the argument, a dictatorship makes desicions very fast and with great ease, but its still wrong, the same with Capitalism, things might be easier, but its harmful and wrong. its a question of economic freedom and equality, or economic tyranny and injustice. [/b]
What tells the community their actions have benefited them? What is the objective criteria?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:12 pm


Now I&#39;m not saying that in an Anarchist system the&#39;re won&#39;t be people who make desicions that effect other people, but what I am saying is that those desicions will only be valid if the the people they effect say it is.
So what happens if the people on the losing side of an issue deny the decision is valid?

[RGacky3]

How will you know? If people are getting what they need materially.

If people on a loosing side of an issue don&#39;t think its valid, then they don&#39;t have to go along with it if they choose not too.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:12 pm


Your looking at the issue in terms of &#39;systems&#39; perse, Anarchism is&#39;nt really about setting up systems in the way Marxists, Democratic Socialists or Utopians do. Its more of a gradual thing, the way I see it is that if workers gain control of their industries, and people gain control of their communities, eventually money would become pretty much useless. I&#39;m not saying that as soon as a revolution happens, say in the form of a General strike, and the workers take over industries all of a sudden money will be gone, but more over time.


Money…or lets call it “An agreed upon medium of exchange” tends to be quite handy in trading every thing from goods and services on the personal level to the international level.

Here are a few examples of what I mean.


If you and your family want to go to a restaurant for dinner, what are you going to give the restaurant staff to cover the effort of serving you the dinner that you ordered?

Or

If you ( or people in your community) want new computer because your old one has began to malfunction and nobody in your community has them to offer you need to go outside your community to get one. Say that your community is located near the forest and the main industry is logging. If you say to the fellows that make the computer “Hey, we can trade you forest products for computer products” and they say. We have more than enough at this time and have no new projects planned where we will need more…We do need iron and steel products however.”

So this community does not want to accept what you have to offer in direct trade because they have no need for it. But the have indicated their willingness to trade…but you have to give them what they want in exchange. So now you need to find a village that produces iron products that the computer producers want.
Actually, what it comes down to is that you have to do their shopping for them and come up with the goods before someone else does because then they will no longer need them. So this means that now you have to look for a community that makes the iron products that community that makes the computers needs and also will accept your forest products in exchange.

Now we have to think about transporting all this stuff around. You have to get your forest products to the iron people. Then load up the iron products and take them to the computer people and unload them get your computer. Then you have reached your goal…you have your computer.

Would you want to do this every time you would like to buy something that your community does not produce?

An agreed upon exchange medium immensely simplifies the trade process.

[Omega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:48 am


If people on a loosing side of an issue don&#39;t think its valid, then they don&#39;t have to go along with it if they choose not too.
With this in mind what would occure in the following situation:

A question is arised about road improvement in the community of say 5000 people. Say 75% agree that the main roads in the town should be repaved with asphalt while 25% say that the "tar and chip" surface that is there now is good enough.

According to what you have written, these 1250 people disagree and thesefore do not have to be involved process just because they choose not to...and they can not be forced to either.

However, this is a project that will benefit the entire community of which they are part. So they will also be benefiting from the improvemnts that were made even though they made it clear they will not participate in the improvement process themselves.

How do you handle a situation like this?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The 25% should submit to the 75%, provided that direct democracy is up and running, and workers councils make decisions for communal zones. Basically, I think that this 25% should be obligated to work in the perceived interests of the majority, in spite of their disagreement.

-Alex

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:48 am
How will you know? If people are getting what they need materially.

If people on a loosing side of an issue don&#39;t think its valid, then they don&#39;t have to go along with it if they choose not too.
How do they know they are getting what they want and need materially in the best possible manner?

How can there be a democracy if people are free NOT to abide by the wishes of the majority? For example, lets say the factory democratically votes to build X number of its units. But there was a number of people who wished to build only Y amount. Or lets say the democratic vote was to offer compensation to the workers at a certain rate. But there was a number of people who wishe it at a higher rate.

Are the workers on the losing side free to refuse under disadvantageous conditions to work because there needs are not being met? you would probably say "yes." But if people are free to ignore the dictates of the majority, then one does not have a democratic society. Indeed, if the majority needs to compromise and adjust its desires to satisfy the needs of the minority, then your community has the same sort of political and economic issues which occur in capitalist communities.