Socialism is just as irrational as religion. Lets accept truth shall we?

[Dejavu]

I mentioned this in the anarcho-capitalism ( the only rational anarchy) thread. GeneCosta made claims about philosophy and materialism and described rather harshly that morality is phony. Yeah, I do a bit of philosophy too

Morality does not exist in the real world, this is true. Morality and Ethics are concepts but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are subjective. Scientific Method also doesn't exist in the real world as it is a concept but that doesn't necessarily mean it is subjective.

And now for the nail in the coffin of Socialism and to show why it is A.irrational B. incompatible with anarchy and C. why it is in the same family as organized religion.

[FONT=Times New Roman]Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world. A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman] A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.

Since you all believe in Socialism, I say why not now go to TomK's church ( sorry TomK) and become Roman Catholics. There is no logical reason why you shouldn't.
[/FONT]

[Dejavu]

Understanding now that 'classes' and 'collectives' do not actually exist. The person that justifies 'collective' ownership over private ownership must also justify the existence of 'god.'

By telling me how 'collective' ownership or 'democratic' 'workers' rule is even REALISTIC ( or should exist) you are obligated to tell me how 'god' exists.

You can't have it both ways. I'll accept theist socialists ( at least its consistent) or if you reject god then you have to reject socialism or your being inconsistent, irrational, and illogical.

Aside from that. As soon as you decide to become rational :

To Anarchists: For those of you who maintain your rationality, I will be accepting applications to pledge your support to anarcho-capitalism.

or

To Socialists: To those of you who wish to be irrational I might recommend an organized religion to join. Otherwise , same goes to you as for the anarchists.


Your friend always,
DejaVu

[Bud Struggle]

Morality does not exist in the real world, this is true. Morality and Ethics are concepts but it doesn't necessarily follow that they are subjective.Scientific Method also doesn't exist in the real world as it is a concept but that doesn't necessarily mean it is subjective.

It also doesn't mean it isn't subjective.

And now for the nail in the coffin of Socialism and to show why it is A.irrational B. incompatible with anarchy and C. why it is in the same family as organized religion.

Actually the idea that Communism is a "religion" is a point I've been making here for some time. Communism is a system of understanding the universe based on "faith" that some things are "preordained." Nothing wrong with that, it just not rational.

[FONT=Times New Roman]

Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]This is without a doubt true. It's a made up construct of judging people by certain certain arbitrary criteria based on the subjective laws of the belief system. Nothing wrong witth that--it's similar to Catholics not eating meat on Fridays in Lent--it's a thing that the believers follow--it's nothing that exists in reality in the real world.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman]

A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status.

If that's what some people want to believe---[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman] Well, OK.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]

Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]You haven't sold me here for the same reason Anarchy hasn't sold me. There's value in a collective government that looks out for the good of the people. It stops excesses of the individuals. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]

Since you all believe in Socialism, I say why not now go to TomK's church ( sorry TomK) and become Roman Catholics. There is no logical reason why you shouldn't.

[/FONT]


You are all WELCOME!! The Lord's awaitin' on ya!!!

[Dejavu]

You haven't sold me here for the same reason Anarchy hasn't sold me. There's value in a collective government that looks out for the good of the people. It stops excesses of the individuals.

Damn Tom, You make this difficult. I have turn you into an atheist and these other guys into capitalists.

OK Tom.

A government is a conceptual description for a group of people who claim and possess the moral right to initiate the use of violence against others within a specific geographical area.
The first thing to understand is that the word “government” is a mere conceptual description, and so has no more existence in reality than “numbers” do. The word “government” has the same relationship to “people” as “forest” has to “trees.” Trees exist; a “forest” does not, except as a description within our minds. People exist - a “government” does not.
Thus there is no point trying to describe the actions or ethics of “governments” - we can only describe the actions and ethics of people.
For morality to mean anything, it must be universal, consistent and reversible. It cannot be considered ethical for me to propose that “Action X” is perfectly moral for me, but perfectly immoral for you - or that this action is perfectly moral today, but perfectly immoral tomorrow.
What is right for one must be right for all - and what is wrong for one must be wrong for all.
Just like logic, A is A. A cannot be A and not A at the same time. Contradictions do not exist in objective reality.

Stealing - forcing a transfer of property against the will of the owner - is wrong. Naturally, this definition perfectly applies to the practice of taxation, which is the initiation of violence against largely-disarmed citizens in order to take their money against their will. I certainly understand the democratic theory that, since people get to vote, the government does not take the money against their will, but the justification is nonsense. The fact that a slave gets to choose his master does not mean that he is not a slave. The fact that voters play a statistically-insignificant part in choosing who gets to rob them does not mean that they are not being robbed.
Some people also respond that the governments provide service, which have to be paid for. However, this is irrelevant. If I steal a $100 from you, then send you $10, I have not absolved myself of the crime of theft.
Some people also respond that certain services must be provided by the government, like roads or education or healthcare or old-age pensions. Again, this is utterly irrelevant. If I steal $100 from you, and then send $20 to my grandmother, or use it to pay for a road, this does not absolve me of the crime of theft.
There are people who also believe some services, such as education, will not be provided to everyone in the absence of the government. This is irrelevant. How education will be provided in the absence of the government has no bearing on the immorality of taxation. Saying that you will support a stateless society as soon as you can be convinced that everyone will get a great education is exactly the same as saying you will support the end of slavery once you know that every ex-slave will get a great job, or that you will only oppose the crime of theft if someone can prove to you that, after theft is abolished, every thief will have enough money.
The first question in politics - and ethics of course - is not what can be achieved through violence, but whether the use of violence is legitimate at all. If violence is legitimized by the ends it achieves, then no moral theories are possible, and society may as well continue its current war of “all against all,” as represented by the police, the military, the government and all the other special interests that prey on taxpayers.
The principles of anarchism - or voluntarism - are simple, direct, rational and clear-eyed. All human beings have the capacity to act in a corrupt and destructive manner - it is our very capacity for corruption and violence that requires the elimination of the centralized coercive power of the State. When you can force your victims to pay for both your income, and the violence which extracts their property, there is no limit to the expansion of violence. The government fosters and engenders widespread conflict - either openly, in warfare, or in the more subtle manner of lobbying and pressure groups. No group of men or women can conceivably wield the extraordinary coercive power of the state and not be corrupted - nor would any decent and honorable person be attracted to that kind of power. The existence of the State both corrupts society through the moral elevation of violence and gives the most corrupt people in society the greatest power.
Only one solution to the problem of violence has ever been found, which is the total elimination of centralized coercive power, so that no single group can profit from gaining control of State power. For example, in the absence of the State, war is never profitable, since without free labor in the form of conscription, and “free” funding in the form of taxation and deficit spending, there is no more profit in war than there is in openly burning down your own house.
The spontaneous self-organization of the free market is the most powerful mechanism for diluting the aggregation of centralized power that has ever been discovered. Monopolies are only possible when corporations - or unions - can leverage the centralized power of the State. The competition of economic self-interest is the only way to ensure that power will never be monopolized by any single group.

Self-Organization which is only available through the free market is the only logical,rational, and valid conclusion.
How can there be 'collectivized' organization when 'collectives' do not exist? How is that rational?


There is the possibility of a world without war, without involuntary poverty, without mandated ignorance - and a world in which violence - at its worst - is only occasionally accidental, not universally institutional.

[Bud Struggle]

Dejavu, How fast do you type? Whew!

[Post-Something]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world. A social class is a concept of a broad 'group' in 'society' having common economic, cultural, or political status. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman] A 'social class' or 'group' are to people as 'forests' are to trees or a 'dozen' to 'twelve' eggs. Individual trees exist, 'forests' do not. Individual eggs exist , a 'dozen' do not. Individual people exist , 'social classes' do not. In short, Individuals exist , 'collectives' do not. Now rationalize that with your socialism and observe its premise is as irrational as organized religion.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.
[/FONT]

Just one quick point, when Marxists distinguish between classes, it's HOW an individual earns his money, not how much, or whatever other method you may wish to use. This is why most Marxists don't care about ideas like the middle class etc. The Bourgeoisie make their money by exploiting, while the proletariat make theirs by being exploited. One owns the means of production, one doesn't. I think that's pretty grounded in reality if you ask me.

[Demogorgon]

Speaks the anarcho-capitalist!

Really this "individuals exist, collectives don't" crap is just embarrassing. Only ultra right wing loonies who want to create a false dichotomy between "individualism" and "collectivism" bring the crap up. Those are meaningless phrases.

[Dejavu]

Just one quick point, when Marxists distinguish between classes, it's HOW an individual earns his money, not how much, or whatever other method you may wish to use. This is why most Marxists don't care about ideas like the middle class etc. The Bourgeoisie make their money by exploiting, while the proletariat make theirs by being exploited. One owns the means of production, one doesn't. I think that's pretty grounded in reality if you ask me.

You can't distinguish on something that has no basis in reality and then claim to derive certain truths from that. It is being irrational. Who the hell are you or anyone else to say how an individual earns HIS money unless they steal it from you ( government).You want a piece of his pie, ask him or trade him something for it. You have no right to steal from him and then claim you would prefer not to be stolen from. No ' bourgeoisie' or anything said about them reflect any truth, nor the 'proletariat.' It doesn't follow that just because one owns his own property all should own his property. It means that if he has the right to own his own property then everyone has the right to own their own property.

Speaks the anarcho-capitalist!

Really this "individuals exist, collectives don't" crap is just embarrassing. Only ultra right wing loonies who want to create a false dichotomy between "individualism" and "collectivism" bring the crap up. Those are meaningless phrases.

Aww listen to the baby whine. You sound like a preacher now telling me to read the Bible. INDIVIDUALISM can only be descriptive of objective reality, NOT COLLECTIVISM. Its based on a myth. We are matter with conscious. The only way we can be a 'collective' is if we had a single conscious and still that would be an individual mind.


You tell me what you mean by collectivism without sounding irrational.

If you choose to be socialist and irrational , base your theories upon a myth, fine with me but you should really explain to me how god exists.

[Bud Struggle]

Damn Tom, You make this difficult. I have turn you into an atheist and these other guys into capitalists.

OK Tom.

A government is a conceptual description for a group of people who claim and possess the moral right to initiate the use of violence against others within a specific geographical area.

Fine I'll accept that definition.

The first thing to understand is that the word “government” is a mere conceptual description, and so has no more existence in reality than “numbers” do. The word “government” has the same relationship to “people” as “forest” has to “trees.” Trees exist; a “forest” does not, except as a description within our minds. People exist - a “government” does not.

What you're describing is nominalism--a pholosophical system based on the idea that there are no universals. I don't know if I'm ready to go that far. There are universals--there is an idea of "tree" out there that lets you identify one quickly and quietly. On the other hand the place I have trouble is in the ARBITRARY universals of the Communists that state if you do X for a living you are this and if you do Y for a living you are that.

Thus there is no point trying to describe the actions or ethics of “governments” - we can only describe the actions and ethics of people.

That's a point I've made here myself.

For morality to mean anything, it must be universal, consistent and reversible. It cannot be considered ethical for me to propose that “Action X” is perfectly moral for me, but perfectly immoral for you - or that this action is perfectly moral today, but perfectly immoral tomorrow. What is right ofr one must be right for all - and what is wrong for one must be wrong for all.

I'll agree to that. Moral laws should be uiniversal--thou shalt not kill.

Stealing - forcing a transfer of property against the will of the owner - is wrong. Naturally, this definition perfectly applies to the practice of taxation, which is the initiation of violence against largely-disarmed citizens in order to take their money against their will. I certainly understand the democratic theory that, since people get to vote, the government does not take the money against their will, but the justification is nonsense. The fact that a slave gets to choose his master does not mean that he is not a slave. The fact that voters play a statistically-insignificant part in choosing who gets to rob them does not mean that they are not being robbed.

Here we disagree. (And maybe I'm the wrong person for you to argue with here.) I am fully vested in the government of the United States. I buy aircraft carriers and schools and welfare with my tax dollars because I WANT these things to be bought, and I pay people from Presidents to janators to supervise my purchaces. I'm a stockholder in America and while my employees don't always do the best job of running the place--they are still my employees and I am the owner.

The principles of anarchism - or voluntarism - are simple, direct, rational and clear-eyed. All human beings have the capacity to act in a corrupt and destructive manner - it is our very capacity for corruption and violence that requires the elimination of the centralized coercive power of the State.

You misunderstand the purrpose of the state--it's to protect you against ME and people like me. I know my weaknesses--and one of them is to control everything I see--and there are a lot worse people than me out there. But the constitution protects people against me, I have to follow rules, I have to obey laws, I'm neutered to running businesses instead of lives. I'm a really nice guy--I just have a habit of taking over. Government stops me. You should be thankful.

Only one solution to the problem of violence has ever been found, which is the total elimination of centralized coercive power, so that no single group can profit from gaining control of State power. For example, in the absence of the State, war is never profitable, since without free labor in the form of conscription, and “free” funding in the form of taxation and deficit spending, there is no more profit in war than there is in openly burning down your own house.

But once you get your anarchy--there will be people to tear it down as soon as it gets up. I would--an anarchy would be a playground for me. I certainly don't want the temptation.

The spontaneous self-organization of the free market is the most powerful mechanism for diluting the aggregation of centralized power that has ever been discovered. Monopolies are only possible when corporations - or unions - can leverage the centralized power of the State. The competition of economic self-interest is the only way to ensure that power will never be monopolized by any single group.

You miss the important connection between money and power. You bais all your presuppositions on the idea that money is all that people want--it's isn't. Money is only the gateway to power. That's the end.

There is the possibility of a world without war, without involuntary poverty, without mandated ignorance - and a world in which violence - at its worst - is only occasionally accidental, not universally institutional.

At this point you have a utopian belief system not unlike Communism or Christianity.

Yours cordially,

Tom

[Dros]

Social class is only a concept and does not exist in the real world.

Operating under a bourgeois definition of class this would be true, yes. However, it is not true when looking at class from a Marxist perspective. Marxism is scientific and looks at the patterns of objective relations. There are certain objective elements called the means of production. They produce certain objects called products. All people in society somehow consume these products (or they die). These products are transferred to these people in ways that are objectively observable. And it is this relationship (between people and the means of production) that defines Marxist class analysis. It is not a social construct but a scientific view of society.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The fact of the matter is that irrationality can be transposed unto virtually any belief system. There are glazed eyed Marxist and anarchist dogmatists who live in their own little isolation chambers, just as there are innumerable [insert opposing ideology here] functionaries. I'm not exactly sure what is so irrational about classifying people based on the services they perform in any given society (and before you label me as one of the "faithful", know that I take serious issues with certain aspects of Marxism.) I would in general agree with Demogorgon when he says that there is quite a bit of false dichtonomy involved in the false "individualist vs. collectivist" divide, which is a trap that many leftists fall into, as well.

[Post-Something]

Operating under a bourgeois definition of class this would be true, yes. However, it is not true when looking at class from a Marxist perspective. Marxism is scientific and looks at the patterns of objective relations. There are certain objective elements called the means of production. They produce certain objects called products. All people in society somehow consume these products (or they die). These products are transferred to these people in ways that are objectively observable. And it is this relationship (between people and the means of production) that defines Marxist class analysis. It is not a social construct but a scientific view of society.

Exactly!

[professorchaos]

An "individual person" is just a descriptive term for a number of biological systems and does not exist objectively. And a biological system is just a descriptive term for a number of organs and does not exist objectively. And an organ is just a descriptive term for a number of tissues. And a tissue is just a descriptive term for a number of cells, which is just a descriptive term for a number of organelles, which is just a descriptive term for a number of molecules, which is just a term for a number of atoms, which is just a term for a number of collected subatomic particles. So in your "reality" the only things that objectively exist are subatomic particles.

Or have I misunderstood?

[Bud Struggle]

The fact of the matter is that irrationality can be transposed unto virtually any belief system. There are glazed eyed Marxist and anarchist dogmatists who live in their own little isolation chambers, just as there are innumerable [insert opposing ideology here] functionaries. I'm not exactly sure what is so irrational about classifying people based on the services they perform in any given society (and before you label me as one of the "faithful", know that I take serious issues with certain aspects of Marxism.) I would in general agree with Demogorgon when he says that there is quite a bit of false dichtonomy involved in the false "individualist vs. collectivist" divide, which is a trap that many leftists fall into, as well.

I would postit that the "Class system" is more arbitrary than irrational--it fits into the specific view of the world that Communists hold of the interpersonal relationships people hold with one another. You may work in a tire factory and I may work in a steel factory, but through our common belief in the idea of a class system we become "comrades".

There are other equally valid world views that hold various other beliefs as to their participants and their realtionships with one another. I may be a Catholic and have a common belief system with other Catholics--with them I am a "comrade" in our beliefs. Lutherans are foreign to Catholic comrades as the bourgeois is to the Communist worker comrades. There is nothing that makes the Communist belief system and it's view on interpersonal relationships--irrational. It like Catholicism or the Elks Club is entirely arbitrary.

As to Communism being a "science" I don't see it as a systematic knowledge based on the scientific method. It's not provable or testable and retestable by independant sources. Communism is a secular system of belief in an organization of the universe that may or may not pan out to be true. I wish you happiness in your beliefs--and if it does bring you happiness it just may be true after all, no matter if the future works out like Marx planned or not.

[Zurdito]

"forests don't exist"?

I stoped reading there, what a pile of rationalist Newtonian crap. as if the universe is made up of little atoms that contain their true essence within themselves, and then build up the universe by simply acting of their own accord and fitting together like rationally self-interest peices in a big clock, in accordance with their internally contained inherent qualities.

that "clockwork" view of the universe has been discredit for quite some time. things get their meaning and qualities from relations to other things. The size of a tree depends on the ground it grows in. The existence of a forest gives life to anecosystem which shapes the tree. the effect of the entire forest on the minerals in the ground affects the way the tree grows. the tree grew where it did because another trees seeds were pollinated by the wind or by a creature, therefore, the tree could not exist as it is, and where it is, without the forest.

Get beyond Newtonian rationalism then come back to us.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

[FONT=Times New Roman]'forests' do not [exist].[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Operating under that logic (and I use the word sparingly) you shouldn't be basing anything off of numbers or time. [/FONT]

[SocialDemocracy19]

not true socialism is making sure everyone is taken care of and if u want anarchy than u support unfair competition but with no limits so its like captialism but worse.

[Dros]

not true socialism is making sure everyone is taken care of and if u want anarchy than u support unfair competition but with no limits so its like captialism but worse.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you read this thread at all?

[RGacky3]

Ask your average wage worker if class exists and matters.

And yeah, Socialism has NOTHING TO DO with individualism vrs collectivism, infact it extends the opportunity for individudalism to everyone, not just the few that can afford it.

Also the concept of the individual is just as philisophical as the concept of the collective, and as long as people interact with each other and work with each other the collective exists as a social phemenon.

No Anarchist or Socialist thinks that the collective exists in a scientific sense, it exists in a social/practical sense, the same way time does'nt really exist as a physical thing, the same way the mind does'nt really exist (all of these examples are phylisophical and thus cannot be empirically proven), the same way the mind/soul does'nt exist.

Socialism is'nt a science, its a group of principles.

[mikelepore]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Free market capitalism is the only economic system that makes a rational argument for individual people since socialism is based on the irrational proposition that 'collectives' really exist.[/FONT]

Groups of things do exist and have group characteristics. No scientist would say that there's no such thing as the sun or the earth or moon, but it's only a case of here's a particle, and here's another one, and another one, and another one.

Groups of people can also have characteristics which can be observed; for example, we can all see the pattern that, in general, it's the masters who dictate instructions to the slaves, and not the reverse.

But let's suppose that, as a semantical exercise, we focus only on the smallest building blocks that can be identified, regarding everything combinatorial as an abstraction. How then, did the huge collection of particles that is the individual human being get selected to be the basic reality? It is because that answer "feels right" -- we have senses to feel our minds and bodies, but we can't feel our particles.

We could even bend over backwards and allow someone to select the individual human being as the fundamental reality, just to see where that leads. There is still a major problem. The original post doesn't show that any choice of social system makes the error that another choice is free of making. How did it come about that, when one person prefers the stockholders to receive the wealth and elect the management, that's the real stuff, but when another person prefers the workers to receive the wealth and elect the management, that an "abstraction"? Only by beginning with the desired conclusion. Another case of selecting what seems to feel right. This is found within a message that reminds us all to be scientific and rational.