What is wrong??? [Archive]

Lardlad95

27th July 2002, 01:01

Because this isn't just a commie board I'm a proud Democratic Socialist.

Actualy I just believe the workers should be treated better and that the people who do the work deserve better credit.

I have no problem with people starting there own buisnesses but when the grow to enron's size or wal marts size then its time to regulate that shit.

Really I just want to end poverty. I don't want to regulate what people watch and shit like that.

Hey geust why don't you join the board? Your one of thefew cappies I can stand.

And even though I think your are mislead you seem to be a very intelegent person.

Guest

27th July 2002, 01:12

The only people who can end poverty are those who exist in it. It isn't good, or execptable, but they exept it. Why? They can't do anything? They aren't the same type of individuals as everyone else. You can't regulate the choices of individuals who start businesses by force of numbers. Because you don't agree you are going to force them to stop by telling them how to live. Companies are not telling anybody how to live, at least not in a free (with free market) society, they simply contract labor. If you don't want to work for someone else don't. There are infinante ways to survive as long as you are left to do it as an individual. It is sad that some people cannot learn to survive without producing someone elses product.
I would sign up and get a name, but it would kind of be arbitrary. It would just serve to degrate that I stand for all nameless individuals. You guys obviously can catch my dialogue, so you'll probably know when it is me.

Guest

27th July 2002, 01:20

I forgot to say that nobody should be rewarded for their exeptance of poverty as a state of life forced on them by some big unnamable force (which here is labeled capitalism). I come from a family of poverty and I never have expected anyone to help me, and I definately don't plan on making my living working for someone else. It is not neccessary to stay dow, it is a choice. All most socialistic philosophies do is bring down those up top, not bring up those at bottom. If mediocracy is respected, who wants achievement? If people are taught that they are mediocer(sp) and that a person in a factory is as good as the architect who built that factory, then no one will strive to achieve. It would get you nowhere exept in trouble with the people who don't understand you achievement. It is history.

Lardlad95

27th July 2002, 03:00

A child born into poverty can't obviously afford things a rich child can. Is it the poor childs fault he's poor? Is it his fault he can't afford to go to a good school or college?

And the fact that he would get a scholarship would be very unlikely because poor public schools don't give great educations.

All I"m trying to say is jobs don't create themselves.

Whats wrong with helping someone find a job?

Whats wrong with helping people? I'm not gonna work for teh person but if they can't find a job why can't I help them find one?

Guest

27th July 2002, 03:11

"Whats wrong with helping someone find a job?"

-Nothing as long as people aren't forced to do it.

"Whats wrong with helping people?"

Nothing but it is kind of stupid if you don't know who you are helping. Look at mankind, they don't look like the kind of people I would trust, therefore I don't believe they deserve my help. Friendship and trust are things to be earned, not given. I would only help my friends, not just any poor person (though I do have friends who have been poor).

" I'm not gonna work for teh person but if they can't find a job why can't I help them find one?"

In a free society you can use your time and effort as you please, just not force others to because you want to.

Intellect is a matter of reasoning, and application of knowledge. How productive you become is independent of you orgin, besides defective genes. It is more your philophies you follow, and desires you have in life that create your productivity. The stonger your drive the farther you go, unless you are expected to wait for and guide those who don't see for themselves. It isn't a responsibility to help, it is a choice, and nobody has the right to demand it.

Lardlad95

27th July 2002, 16:02

>>>Nothing as long as people aren't forced to do it. <<<

We have welfare don't we? Since we both know that its wrong why not put that money to better use by finding people jobs?

People shouldn;t get money for nothing so instead of paying people to do nothing. We use the welfare budget to set up programs to find peoples jobs.

What I wanted to suggest was that it just becomes a government program. I wouldn't force people to work there. But some people like helping people and working in feilds where they serve the communty.

Now whats a better idea, welfare or Job assistance.

>>>Nothing but it is kind of stupid if you don't know who you are helping. Look at mankind, they don't look like the kind of people I would trust, therefore I don't believe they deserve my help. Friendship and trust are things to be earned, not given. I would only help my friends, not just any poor person (though I do have friends who have been poor).<<<

No compassion? If you have whats wrong with giving a small bit to someone who doesn't?

I never said you had to, but is it foolish to give a bum a quarter?

I don't want people to give people handouts. I want them to work.

What about those poor people who have no friends or family left to help them? NOt anyones responsibility, however if you were in the same position would you mined a man walking on the street to drop a few cents into your cup?

>>>It isn't a responsibility to help, it is a choice, and nobody has the right to demand it. <<<

you mistake my belief in charity for wanting to force people to help.

you don't have to do anything you don't want. However think of yourself in that position. Wouldn't you want someones help. Not everyone needs to help you, I understand that.

However I hope that some people in the world have a little bit of compassion for those people whos fault it isn't.

Why should the baby of a crack head suffer? Is it his fault? but hey its not our responsibility so we should just let him wander the streets when he's 2 years old.

Stormin Norman

27th July 2002, 18:50

"Because this isn't just a commie board I'm a proud Democratic Socialist. "

-Same thing
-communists = socialist = liberal = insect

Guest

27th July 2002, 18:54

Welfare is a form of the govenment forcing the individuals of a society to be responsible for others. It is wrong an un-American, un-individualist. Welfare came from the liberals who have controled our government for a long time. I have compassion, but only for those who deserve it, which isn't just not having a job and claiming to want one.
You are also forgetting that many homeless are there because They fail to fit into society. That same society created by the leftist "establishment" (which is the only establishment that exists) that makes what is politically correct and acceptable by the mass. Homeless are the sufferers of not being treated fairly by an employer or capitalism, it is that they have a mental illness (many cases this is true) and/or have no ability to work in a system composed of those who produce the product of another (meaning what another originally created). The homeless man is rebeling against society because it is telling him how to live and he logically knows that he detirmines his own destiny, the conflict (collectivism vs. individualism) is the basis of this forum.
I am planning on joining just not right now.

And one last thing "you mistake my belief in charity for wanting to force people to help."
Any government program or act of force that tells a man to give to another without his choice is a violation of his right. If you wanted to organize to build a house for everyone in the worlds that is your choice (your life find your own goal in it) but I shouldn't be obligated because you or even the majority think it is right.

Stormin Norman

27th July 2002, 19:12

The Story of the Loach

Here is the secret to my success. I was simultaneuosly collecting unemployment, welfare, food stamps, and any other government subsidy that you could imagine. They gave me so much I couldn't spend it all. Now I am a rich man. Thank you, wise nanny, for forcing generosity down the throats of others. Never would I have been able to aqcuire such wealth on my own, for I am a miserable loach.

Xvall

27th July 2002, 20:05

Quote: from Guest on 12:21 am on July 27, 2002
Why shouldn't a man be able to think of an idea, produce a product, and market it? Is it fair that he profit independently for his independent work, or should he have to shre with those who did not create anything useful?

Because the man doesn't deserve it. The man may have thought of the initial idea. But unless he is making every single item and manufacturing EVERYTHING by himself, he should be required to share his profits with the people who are doing his work for him by creating an mass producing whatever great 'idea' that he has concocted in his head. He must also have some dedication and responsibility for his workers, making sure that they are not harmed or mistreated during this process of manufacturing. Communism deproves no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation.

Stormin Norman

27th July 2002, 20:28

"Because the man doesn't deserve it. The man may have thought of the initial idea. But unless he is making every single item and manufacturing EVERYTHING by himself, he should be required to share his profits with the people who are doing his work for him by creating an mass producing whatever great 'idea' that he has concocted in his head."

-I believe they do share the profits by paying a salary or wage to those who wish to work for them.
-I have said it before and I will say it again. The person who wishes to deprive other men of intellectual property have none of their own. I think they probably lack the intellectual capacity to truly understand the implications of taking this right away from man. If you do not guarantee man the right to his ideas, then he will stop generating them, because there is no longer incentive. Not all men are as 'progressive' in their thinking as you. No man with any brains would produce technology for people who fail to acknowledge its benefits, without compensation.

Lardlad95

27th July 2002, 22:51

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 6:50 pm on July 27, 2002
"Because this isn't just a commie board I'm a proud Democratic Socialist. "

-Same thing
-communists = socialist = liberal = insect

once again your wrong. Democratic Socialist allow some free trade. However we believe that buisnesses shouldn't become excessivley large. And that they should be more closely monitored by the government to make sure no frauds are committed and they aren't doing any illegal things and or treating workers badly

Lardlad95

27th July 2002, 22:52

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 7:12 pm on July 27, 2002
The Story of the Loach

Here is the secret to my success. I was simultaneuosly collecting unemployment, welfare, food stamps, and any other government subsidy that you could imagine. They gave me so much I couldn't spend it all. Now I am a rich man. Thank you, wise nanny, for forcing generosity down the throats of others. Never would I have been able to aqcuire such wealth on my own, for I am a miserable loach.

alot of socialist don't believe in those systems. We'd rather people work.

Lardlad95

27th July 2002, 22:58

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 8:28 pm on July 27, 2002
"Because the man doesn't deserve it. The man may have thought of the initial idea. But unless he is making every single item and manufacturing EVERYTHING by himself, he should be required to share his profits with the people who are doing his work for him by creating an mass producing whatever great 'idea' that he has concocted in his head."

-I believe they do share the profits by paying a salary or wage to those who wish to work for them.
-I have said it before and I will say it again. The person who wishes to deprive other men of intellectual property have none of their own. I think they probably lack the intellectual capacity to truly understand the implications of taking this right away from man. If you do not guarantee man the right to his ideas, then he will stop generating them, because there is no longer incentive. Not all men are as 'progressive' in their thinking as you. No man with any brains would produce technology for people who fail to acknowledge its benefits, without compensation.

ok question though. Say a man invents something for a company that he works for. Why the hell should a CEO get more than him? They didn't come up with the idea, yet they do.

People are making more money than someone who be inventing shit even if they don't do a goddamn thing.

Atleast the laborers actually work as apposed to lazy executives who sign some damn papers.

canikickit

28th July 2002, 03:07

fuck off

Lardlad95

28th July 2002, 03:08

Quote: from canikickit on 3:07 am on July 28, 2002
fuck off

who me or him

Xvall

28th July 2002, 06:16

Seeing as he has an Upside Down flag, he's probably talking about Norman.

Stormin Norman

28th July 2002, 06:24

Far right wingers are just as likely to use upside down flags as avatars. It still remains an ambigous statement devoid of any real thought, either way.

Well, the CEO is getting what the corporation decides to pay him, so is the inventor or engineer. Salray is something that is agreed upon prior to signing a contract. Most of the time people who are employeed to generate ideas also sign over any said intellectual property. This is to prevent the designer from using the company as a launching ground for his own private profits, and is meant to keep competitors from practicing industrial espionage.

Lardlad95

28th July 2002, 21:24

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 6:24 am on July 28, 2002
Far right wingers are just as likely to use upside down flags as avatars. It still remains an ambigous statement devoid of any real thought, either way.

Well, the CEO is getting what the corporation decides to pay him, so is the inventor or engineer. Salray is something that is agreed upon prior to signing a contract. Most of the time people who are employeed to generate ideas also sign over any said intellectual property. This is to prevent the designer from using the company as a launching ground for his own private profits, and is meant to keep competitors from practicing industrial espionage.

but thats exactley my point. If the designer can't use it for his own profits, why should anyone else? WHy should the CEO get more money? Thats complete bullshit. He is getting more of the profits than anyone else. Instead of the designer using it for personal gain the CEO is.

People who sign papers and fire people don't exactley deserve the most money.

The Guest

30th July 2002, 00:11

Is the world all about money. Yes I agree many people in capitalist are greedy, but the point is having the right to chose. If The designer doesn't want to contract the idea he doesn't have to, unless we live in a world were government can help in th individuals choice making. Greed is usually the sign of insecurity manifesting itself to plea for the attention and approval of others. Money does nothing for one man, until he has another to compare it to. That is why status should be detirmined by individual accomplishment, where you naturally place yourself, instead of were other people put you. The money system is another joke of our economy. Ever hear of all the Russian immagrants brought in just before Wilson was elected president. Or about the ones that left with a military after that to return to Russia for war. To be short, though I always seem longwinded, our money system was bought over and a monopoly of it was given away. It wasn't capitalism, it was the result of government mixing with the private sector. Now we have a nice game of tossing bonds, and fed can toss the interest around, and the market isn't free, it is determined by the government and the people who they sold the money market to.

Lardlad95

30th July 2002, 00:16

Quote: from The Guest on 12:11 am on July 30, 2002
Is the world all about money. Yes I agree many people in capitalist are greedy, but the point is having the right to chose. If The designer doesn't want to contract the idea he doesn't have to, unless we live in a world were government can help in th individuals choice making. Greed is usually the sign of insecurity manifesting itself to plea for the attention and approval of others. Money does nothing for one man, until he has another to compare it to. That is why status should be detirmined by individual accomplishment, where you naturally place yourself, instead of were other people put you. The money system is another joke of our economy. Ever hear of all the Russian immagrants brought in just before Wilson was elected president. Or about the ones that left with a military after that to return to Russia for war. To be short, though I always seem longwinded, our money system was bought over and a monopoly of it was given away. It wasn't capitalism, it was the result of government mixing with the private sector. Now we have a nice game of tossing bonds, and fed can toss the interest around, and the market isn't free, it is determined by the government and the people who they sold the money market to.

the world is all about money and it shouldn't be.

money should be abolished but it wont until a UTOPIA is created.

Hattori Hanzo

30th July 2002, 00:18

"Well if you're a communist, you are saying that. And not just your money, but your land, too."

not really. mabey as a system in the past, but not according to the party manifesto

"And I know, Lardlad, YOU AREN'T A PINKO COMMIE. Though I think it's strange how you become so defensive so quick......."

and me?

"Fuck communism."

I thought you were trying to be open-minded

"-The Kid"

LOL you are the kid of this site

The Guest

30th July 2002, 00:42

The only people who think the world is about money are

those who lack the ability (intellect) to see that it is just

a symbolic representation of value. If everyone was

working to make themselves at their best value status

(which should be the goal of all individuals) we wouldn't

have people saying they don't have the oppertunity to

make money. You can be above money, it is a personal

decision.

Lardlad95

30th July 2002, 01:35

Quote: from The Guest on 12:42 am on July 30, 2002
The only people who think the world is about money are

those who lack the ability (intellect) to see that it is just

a symbolic representation of value. If everyone was

working to make themselves at their best value status

(which should be the goal of all individuals) we wouldn't

have people saying they don't have the oppertunity to

make money. You can be above money, it is a personal

decision.

if money isn't important why are their classes?

Money isn't important but people feel it is, you can't operate in society and not have to operate with thier reality.

The Guest

30th July 2002, 01:44

Others perception isn't reality, and I'll refuse to accept

it. As I said it is a personal decision, I have my answer,

you yours. I would say that class systems evolve from

the idea that man's true position is represented by his

value, what he does for himself. A man that doesn't

provide or provides less in naturally less valuable to the

man who produces for himself. It would also come to

the virtues they carried. Understanding, courage,

independence, seeking of knowledge and improvement

for himself. If a man refuses to defend himself when

confronted with the aggression of another is also one

who falls into a lower class than a man who doesn't

submit, but realizes he is in control of himself and takes

a stand, openly and clearly, defending himself. You

detirmine your value and class by the choices you make

in life.

Lardlad95

30th July 2002, 01:47

so what about a man who got his ststus by stealinanother work?

The Guest

30th July 2002, 02:00

They are the second handers of society, along with

those who openly declare a right to others work. I don't

stand for any cause simply for this reason. No matter

where a person claims to stand, or what veiw they think

they have, the only way to tell who they are is by

meeting the individual. It is impossible for all men to

agree, but to make it a law that they have to is wrong.

Stealing work is something you must also prove

though, if you willingly gave it away (individually made

the decision to give it out) there is not much you can do.

You made the decision, regardless of consequence.

Death does come to though when one imagines living as

though you owed society compulsorary service(like the

draft, would you fight in a war you didn't agree with, or

had nothing to do with?). Lets hope not.

Lardlad95

30th July 2002, 02:05

stealing work is taking credit for it.

credit does not equal money.

So why is a worker who wants to be paid fairly said to want credit for another's work?

The Guest

30th July 2002, 02:16

Value equals money and when an individual fairly

attains value nobody has a right to claim it. A worker is

not attaining the value through himself. He has

subjected himself to the value rating of the person he

made a contract with. He knew that when he took the

job, and if he isn't being forced to stay has no

arguement but that he has let anothe judge him and

doesn't agree.

Lardlad95

30th July 2002, 02:19

but then how can you that a mans value is what he does for himself?

A laborer works extremely hard for himself.

The Guest

30th July 2002, 02:32

Most laborors work for others, or we wouldn't have a

problem.

Lardlad95

30th July 2002, 02:36

Quote: from The Guest on 2:32 am on July 30, 2002
Most laborors work for others, or we wouldn't have a

problem.

so the laborers just show up to work for no damn reason?

The Guest

30th July 2002, 03:04

No, in the case I was suggesting they work to produce

a product of someone elses company. If they cared so

much about there labor they wouldn't just give it away

for money that is controled by the fed. Why invest in

money when someone else gets most the interest?

They make their contracts. Are you saying if a laboror

had no employer to labor for he couldn't organize labor

that would benefit himself?

peaccenicked

30th July 2002, 03:13

The fact is that we are born into capitalism and depending how you started determines where you are positioned on the labour market. Class mobility is largely a myth. Take it or leave is not freedom, it is the very essence of slavery. Socialists want a free association of producers to plan the economy not the whims of the
minority employing class to dictate the conditions of our lives.

Lardlad95

30th July 2002, 03:16

Quote: from The Guest on 3:04 am on July 30, 2002
No, in the case I was suggesting they work to produce

a product of someone elses company. If they cared so

much about there labor they wouldn't just give it away

for money that is controled by the fed. Why invest in

money when someone else gets most the interest?

They make their contracts. Are you saying if a laboror

had no employer to labor for he couldn't organize labor

that would benefit himself?

of course they could.

However I meant that the reason the workers work is for their benefeit. They could care less about the company, they have kids to feed.

The Guest

30th July 2002, 03:28

My father was an alcoholic drug addict that died when I

was 17 from a heroin over dose. My mom labored her

whole life to keep me and my brother alive. Both my

mom's parents were alcoholics and by dad's dad was a

dump truck driver with an 8th grade education. That is

the position my family was in not me. I am now about to

begin college at a major university, and plan to double

major in physics and Political Economies of Industrial

Societies. My parents don't determine were I go in life, I

do. I am my own drive and determining factor. Class in

every sense of the word is determined by the

individuals drive and self-concept. All your socialist

programs did was allow my father (who only worked 5

years of his life) to collect money (through social

security) to buy drugs with. It didn't make my father pay

for the life he vreated, it paid him for deserting it and

being a drug addict.

If a laboror didn't care about his business why would he

work there? Why would you subect yourself to

workingfor someone else if you can produce for

yourself. You should have an acceptable way to make a

living for yourself before you decide to have children to

support.

Hattori Hanzo

30th July 2002, 03:36

"quite"

peaccenicked

30th July 2002, 03:38

Breaking out of working class poverty is commendable but generalising about the motives of the working class is not. We dont deserve any bad conditions, and castigating your father is not going to help anybody.
An acceptable way to find a living for all, not just the few and those encouraged to take something out of the education system, is the order of the day.

Lardlad95

30th July 2002, 03:46

Quote: from The Guest on 3:28 am on July 30, 2002
My father was an alcoholic drug addict that died when I

was 17 from a heroin over dose. My mom labored her

whole life to keep me and my brother alive. Both my

mom's parents were alcoholics and by dad's dad was a

dump truck driver with an 8th grade education. That is

the position my family was in not me. I am now about to

begin college at a major university, and plan to double

major in physics and Political Economies of Industrial

Societies. My parents don't determine were I go in life, I

do. I am my own drive and determining factor. Class in

every sense of the word is determined by the

individuals drive and self-concept. All your socialist

programs did was allow my father (who only worked 5

years of his life) to collect money (through social

security) to buy drugs with. It didn't make my father pay

for the life he vreated, it paid him for deserting it and

being a drug addict.

If a laboror didn't care about his business why would he

work there? Why would you subect yourself to

workingfor someone else if you can produce for

yourself. You should have an acceptable way to make a

living for yourself before you decide to have children to

support.

sir may I remind you I don't support welfare or any other program that gives money to anyone for nothing.

Its truly sad about your life and uplifiting to see that you did that for yourself.

However not everyone can be as lucky as you. Not everyone is as string.

People have personal limits you know. Obviously your problems were just short of that limit.

Somethings just crush you and you just can't continue as you once were.

My uncle saw his girlfriend's friend get depcapitated. He hasn't been the same since.

Something in life just hold you back and you need help, theres no shame in admitting that.

If you were a five year old when your father died and your mother was a crack addict so she neglected you and you had to take care of your little brothers and sisters that shits gonna screw you up.

Do you think a kid in that enviroment isn't gonna need help.

Theres nothing wrong with being self made, but remember some people need to help to get their lives on track.

my father was also an alcoholic and he beat me, however with help from people, with their support and his own support of himself he is no longer an alcoholic and we have a good relationship now.

If you can get through by yourself thats all well and good but not everyone can be you.

The Guest

30th July 2002, 03:51

My example of my father was simply to show the futility

of your dream. Some people don't have drive to do

anything. It is a waste of time to attempt to "help"

them. If you don't succeed and they still don't care then

you have not only lost them, but all the time you spent

trying to help them. Rising from poverty is a matter of

determination and confidence that (dispite people who

teach otherwise) I could do whatever I wanted. I didn't

realy generalize the motives of the working class,

everyone has their own motives. I didn't take anything

out of the education system. In fact until I realized the

dementedness of others I relebed against it. When I

got to high school, I realized that if I was to go

anywhere I had to play their game. I didn't learn

anything but hypocrisy in school. The working class

doesn't deserve any bad conditions, but they shouldn't

expect me to make their conditions better. I didn't

demand others to support me, and I didn't expect it. No

one is going to fix someone elses life with no reason,

and complaining of unfair treatment in conditions that

YOU choice is not anywhere close to a reason.

EACH MAN CONTROLS HIS OWN DESTINY.

Lardlad95

30th July 2002, 04:01

If I live in a ghetto and have to go to a run down public school how the hell am I gonna controll my destiny?

Go to a private school and sit in the lobby until they are forced to teach me?

Ooh or maybe I can just buy a whole bunch of books with the abundance of money my mom brings home?

But wait we need that money food and rent and utilities.

Not to mention when they get out of school it isn't going to be easy to go to a good college if I go to college at all.

I'm not saying a man can't bring himself up but it isn't as always easy as people say.

Also if people refuse to work thats there problem but their children shouldn't suffer.

I don't expect you to try and change things. Very few people actually care enough to want to.

However seeing as how I know your not a socialist, just atleast do one thing, if you start a buisness treat your workers fairly.

I want to change things, I'm not gonna force anyone to join me. But its a moral thing to me.

like if I'm in a group of people and someone makes a racist joke about middle eastern people I'm still gonna tell them they are wrong.

I'm not middle eastern but its still wrong.

I'm not an underpaid worker but its still wrong.

peaccenicked

30th July 2002, 04:03

''No man is an island''
Your claim of self sufficency and containment and your in dubiously contented position(why are you here?) could only be achieved by the aid of others.
If you dont want to help others, then I say that is blatant spiritual poverty and a sad reflection of the atomised consciouness that capitalism produces. A healthy life is a balance of give and take, that is a traditional social norm expoused in all cultures.

The Guest

30th July 2002, 04:45

All cultures aren't health. Like an african girl who loses

(gives) her clitoris in the right of passage to

womanhood (take). Is that a healthy balance? I never

said I wouldn't help or recieve help. Not everyone is

helpable, not every culture is good, and you must

balance give and take as you said, so not everyone can

get given to everytime they need it. What id too people

need the same thing and you only have enough for one?

Look at the rate of resource depleation now, and

imagine what happens if mans only goals is to keep all

other men alive?

peaccenicked

30th July 2002, 04:53

I do not agree with Malthusian myths of over population.
The people advocating it never propose to exterminate themselves.

The Guest

30th July 2002, 05:16

I have never even heard of that (malthusian). My info. is

based on the fact that the natural resources (forests ,

rivers, ect.) have showed a highly increased

deterioration ever since the implimintation of mass

production. If a person were to propose suicide would

that make them more believable? I didn't say to

exterminate anyone anyway. You can't exterminate

(destroy) that which you have control of. What about

two people asking for the samething when only one is

avaliable. Who does your socialism chose? (Lardlad I

know you wouldn't try to control that.)

(Edited by The Guest at 5:17 am on July 30, 2002)