I didn't think Avatar was a commentary on Capitalism because in Capitalism all interactions and transactions for goods and services are voluntary and consensual. In the movie, the mercenaries eventually just resort to piracy to get what they want. That's not capitalist ... that's criminal and wrong ... which I guess is why they're the bad guys. :)
I like the effects of avatar but not so much the leftist sublimmal message. My advice is to watch non-pc historcial accurate versions of Last Samurai ( Crouching Tiger),
DWW ( Last of the Morchians), Pochahontos ( The New World), District 9 ( any anti-apartheid, minus that chessy one with Tom Robbins and Derek Luke- more pro-commie than anti-apartheid- movie that involves Black Humans and NOT aliens from outer space that you f..king hate). District 9 looked more like a pro-Apartheid movie
@mrrossn It does. But my comment was directed to the maker of this video.
In his world "The World Works" when Democrats are accused of something, they are guilty, but if a GOP is convicted of something, it is either activist judges, or, not to be discussed.
@PaulinaPaulino I have watched this guy for awhile, & it seems that if someone is doing something he doesn't like or he thinks is wrong he calls them on it, he gives his point of view, it just happens he doesn't see eye to eye with Liberals & Dems to much, personally, I don't see eye to eye with them either, but that is just me. But say what you want it is his Chanel on a public forum, and if we have to grin & take the stupidity of Liberal groups at colleges when I try to go to class, well FOS
Avatar is what Goebbels would be very proud of. It makes unsuspecting audience unconsciously relate to the Navi and portray people (mercenaries) and technology overall as fundamentally evil. If you look at color, warm is used when showing Pandora - cold when showing the mercenaries. Happiness when showing Navi - loneliness - people, etc. it's throughtout
Overall, this movie can't be explained by anything other that Cameron is a eugenicist.
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative."
John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington (March 1866)
This is actually a stronger indictment against Conservatives. Use the Venn diagram and you will see that Mill meant that Conservatives only come from stupid people.
And now let us go back to the cultural issues. Even if Aboriginal cultures, for some strange reasons whatsoever, are "inferior" to European cultures, there's no justification for European Imperialists to conquer them, strip them of their property, and force the latter's culture upon the former.
Cultures, unlike organisms, do NOT evolve (having descendants which can adapt to the new or changing environment) but change when people abandons some practices and invent others.
@DonKhoi " there's no justification for European Imperialists to conquer them, strip them of their property, and force the latter's culture upon the former."
Sure there is. It's the better life their future generations will lead with the better technology and education our culture created. If our culture wasn't better, they wouldn't have lost. Reality doesn't have tree Gods that summon bats and shit, Nor should it. It was a dying way of life and they should have accepted what we had to offer.
@pimpdalyrical: So can agnostic atheists violate Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and religious people's property laws because agnosticism/atheism will offer better education free from religious indoctrination based on fear and ignorance of natural phenomena, such as thunder, lightning? (I am a Strong Atheist, mind you)
No, We have property laws here. The indians didn't, they raped, pillaged, and stole each other's lands all the time. They were not peaceful. We were coming whether they liked it or not, like a force of nature, and they refused to adapt, instead responding with violence. They got dealt with.
PS. religious private schools are kicking the crap out of your agnostic/secular government schools in academic performance. So, it would be the other way around.
@pimpdalyrical: "The indians didn't, they raped, pillaged, and stole each other's lands all the time."
That would not justify stealing their lands and resources and force them to adopt your culture. Just because two individuals are violating each other's their property rights does not justify the action of a Third Party who kill them both and take their property
@pimpdalyrical: What "forced of nature?" Modern weapons, not culture. European Cultures cannot killed Native Americans, robbed them of their lands, and herded them into concentration camps. Not because Europeans culture is superior, but because Europeans HAPPENED to practice such cultures.
The human brain, which thought up all those neat weapons, is a natural phenomena. Everything that went into the design, manufacture, and use of those weapons, came from right here on planet earth. Much like the lion, who champions natural selection with the claws and teeth nature gave him.
The first thing the indians did when the Europeans got here was deal with them to kill the next tribe over. The natives here were behind the times, in arms, civility, and thinkin down the road.
@pimpdalyrical: "The desire to command is essentially a barbarous desire. ... Command cannot be otherwise than savage, for it implies an appeal to force, should force be needful. ... Command is the foe of peace, for it breeds war of words and feelings – sometimes of deeds. It is inconsistent with the first law of morality. It is radically wrong. ... "You must do not as you will, but as I will," is the basis of every mandate, whether used by a planter to his Negro, or by a husband to his wife."
@pimpdalyrical: The quotes was from Social Statics, the author was libertarian thinker Herbert Spencer, who coined the term "Survival of the Fittest."
Negores of course killed, plundered, and raped each other, but Spencer also made clear that Black enslavement was never justified.
@DonKhoi I'll make sure and remind you how much you hate servitude when you're telling somebody in your commune they should produce more. That's where eveyr Marxist experiment leads, yours will too.
Now if you'll excuse me, those laborers I exploit while providing their needs, wants, and hopes for their families, need me to risk everything of my own some more.
@pimpdalyrical: "those laborers I exploit while providing their needs, wants, and hopes for their families, need me to risk everything of my own some more."
Because they unfortunately do not have the means of production, they must either work for you or starve to death. If they do, I doubt they will.
@DonKhoi "Because they unfortunately do not have the means of production."
THey can if they want to. I do because I chose to. The government doesn't run my industry yet. Anybody can have the means of production in this capitalism. That's how it works. They choose to earn a living helping me instead, because they don't want to take the added risks.
You'll figure that out as your commune promises more than it's people can deliver.
@pimpdalyrical: You can read the free-market libertarian economist Dean Baker's "The Conservative Nanny State," Chapter 7, Small Business Babies, to see how GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION INTO THE MARKET help small businessmen like you (not wage-workers, of course) stay afloat. If your wage-workers read that book, I think they will start to embrace at least Proudhonian Mutualism.
@pimpdalyrical: You still NOT understand natural selection. The conflict between Europeans and Negroes et al. is NOT NATURAL SELECTION, merely competition WITHIN A CERTAIN ENVIRONMENT.
If suddenly the Sun increase its radiation and Europeans cannot give birth to darker-skin offspring, regardless of how advanced their brain is, they will NOT survive.
Because dark-skin folks, regardless of their primitive culture, are the FITTEST (that's how Darwin and Spencer understood it) under the NEW ENVIRONMENT WITH INTENSE SUNLIGHT, so they will survive.
That's what it is, you're just a white hating bigot. I was wondering where this hatred of advanced civilazation comes from. As much as I would love to say my black skin is due to being superior, it's really just a product of my environment. If the sun radiance decreases, I won't have the ability to absorb as much Vitamin D either, and the white's will have the advantage.
What conflict between Euro's and Negros? White americans fought other white americans over slavery.
@pimpdalyrical: I am not a White hater. If not, why the Hell had I quoted Spencer so favourably , a White Anglo-Saxon thinker? Although an Asian by birth, I wasn't influenced by Confucius but Western thinkers. Neither do I hate civilization, like Spencer, I hate those, thinking they are civilized, bestow upon them the right to enslave other primitive folks.
Don't you deny that French colonizers of Africa are not Caucasoids ? Are not Arabs slave-raiders Caucasoids also?
@pimpdalyrical: My example about the possible extinction of White bloodline is completely hypothetical. If the Sun Radiation is intense enough, bronze-skinned Native Americans and Asians like me would bite the dust also, leaving on the face of the Earth only Black members of the homo sapiens species. Would you say that I am a self-hating Asian.
I only demonstrate that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Evolution via natural Selection. Cultural Superiority or the lack thereof will NOT help you survive should the Environment change.
And so, stop your ignorant rantings, based on your complete misunderstanding of evolution, about eliminating "bad" elements from the gene pools.
@pimpdalyrical: "White americans fought other white americans over slavery."
Among them was Lysander Spooner, an ardent Abolitionist but who despised Lincoln and the Civil War, which was waged not to abolish slavery, but to serve the interest of Northern Industrial Magnates.
@pimpdalyrical: "What conflict between Euro's and Negros?"
The Scramble of Africa from 1885-1910, the Anglo-Zulu War, etc.
Of course, Black Africans were not angels. They commit atrocities against each other, violated each other 's personal and property rights from times immemorial. But under no circumstances can European atrocities toward them can be justified.
@pimpdalyrical: You should study more about the Civil War than repeating Northern Propaganda about the "Abolition of Slavery."
Libertarian authors Mark Thornton and Robert B. Ekelund, Jr. had laid more emphasis on how high and low tariffs were favored between Northern industrial magnates and Southern slave-owners.
I know all about the abolition of slavery, son. I have family journals from men who lived it.
Do you ever have a thought of your own? All you can do is quote. Just because somebody else said it doesn't make it right, or all that insightful. Being a conservative, liberal, libertarian, Christian, or atheist should come from within. Not a list of authors. Especially if you got from some academic who couldn't face having to compete so became a teacher when he ran out of classes to take.
@pimpdalyrical: By the way, you are a hypocrite who like to commit the Tu Quoque Fallacy. That A and B do wrongs to each other does not justify C's aggression against both. That Blacks/Native Americans/Australian Aborigines violated each other's person and property rights does not justify European aggression.
So do you think that your Black ancestors deserve to be enslave by Whites because they are not angels. And by analogy, Native Americans to be conquered by Europeans?
@pimpdalyrical: First, I select thinkers who wrote things THAT ARE THEMSELVES RATIONAL. I do not quote something because some famous thinkers said it. Spenecer only HAPPENED to state right things. That's all! You simply attack a strawman!
I attack your ideas based on their historical failure. You bring up what other people think to excuse your own rationalizing. I want to know what YOU think and feel, not who said it first. Use your own mind. Question with boldness even the existence of God, remember?
The past doesn't need to be justified. Just learned from. What's your justification for following in the footsteps of countless communist dictators, human rights violators, despots, and genocidal maniacs?
@pimpdalyrical: First, those dictators practice "State Capitalism," under which regimes the means of production are concentrated in the hands of ruling bureaucracies who dictated their workers just like capitalist bosses. Workers had NO SAY on how to use the MoPs but must obey bureaucrats.
Marx, in contrast, advocates workers' co-ops, where everybody will HAVE A SAY.
@pimpdalyrical: Well, it was YOU who justified/rationized PAST European Atrocities against native Americans based on the fact that they are not good people, wasn't it?
As for me, NO WHERE had I justified Lenin's, Trotsky's, Stalin's, Mao's, Hoxha's, etc. atrocities?
All of them, merely authoritarian impostors who distorted Marx' and Engels' writings and masqueraded themselves as Marxists.
@DonKhoi Not really. I just don't owe them anything because of it.
Whine about what you think you are owed for past atrocities, after you have made up for the one's your own ancestors committed. I'm not gonna live my life bitter over history. It's pointless. Learn from it.
I don't attack a strawman, you advocate one. An unrealistic Utopia, that has never worked despite being tried. Slavery is just as often excused by having to fulfill other people's needs, as money. China, the soviets...
Yes, I looked at the FEC website. Sorry, living in squaller with dykes isn't my thing. They still need of Capitalist educated farmer from the real world? Maybe it's the whole 'You're gonna grow it, and get a tent while we eat it' deal. Or maybe its the ambiguity of the ad, what happens after the growing season "April to "November" and their skills aren't useful? You can live how you want, but don't preach. You just have low expectations for yourself, not the moral high ground.
Having a say doesn't mean you have property rights. My property is not up to a vote. I don't just have a say, I'm the dictator of my property.
You really think your little commune won't out vote you if taking your property fulfills the "common need." Of course they will. You just haven't had to deal with it yet because they avoid that scenario like every other marxist experiment has. Not having anything to begin with. Equality is easy when the best you can do is the poverty line.
@pimpdalyrical: I hadn't thought you are actually that STUPID.
First, I EXPOSED the fact that in the USSR, China, Albania, etc. the Party Bureaucrats OWNED the MOPs, ORDER THE OBEDIENT WORKERS AROUND, thus BEHAVED JUST LIKE DICTATORIAL CAPITALIST BOSSES OVER THEIR PROPERTY. In those countries only bureaucrats have property rights.
The people gave those Dictators the means of production, because like your commune leaders, they promised to give it "to the people." It's an old trick, you're falling for it.
As for my employees, I have no option but to employ the voluntary. There's another guy they can go work for less than a mile away. They won't revolt, they can quit any time they like. They can even take what I teach them and become their own boss like I did. Can you?
@pimpdalyrical: "The people gave those Dictators the means of production"
Study history again, especially the October Revolution. After overthrowing Kerensky's bourgeois provisional government, the MoP are distributed amongst the Worker and Peasant Councils, but in 1918 Lenin decreed that the bureaucrats will manage the MoP. So the councils were actually ROBBED of their property.
@pimpdalyrical: Having demonstrated how only members within a commune or co-op can decide what to do with their common property, I will proceed to how the common owners will use it.
Because the MoP, more specifically, lands, tools, raw materials, are owned in common (AS INITIALLY AGREED ON A STRICTLY VOLUNTARY BASIS), decisions on how to use them to serve the needs of all will be by means of consensus.
" only members within a commune or co-op can decide what to do with their common property,"
Exactly, COMMON property. Which means YOU don't own shit! Everything you have is up for a vote there isn't it? What happens when you disagree with the consensus over what you "need?" Do you even get to decide that, or is what a person "needs" predetermined before you even get there? The truth is, I'm free, you're not. When I want food, I grow it, I eat it. You need an ok from others.
@pimpdalyrical: Your workers are not free. If they want food, they cannot grow it but must work for you and then you leave them only the bare necessities to keep them alive while pocketing the surplus value. If they had read Dean Baker's book and know that because thanks to government intervention in the market that you are their boss, they will surely revolt.
And you are NOT free neither. If you fire all your workers and no one comes to work for you, after you have consumed everything you will starve to death. You depend on them just like they depend on you.
you're right there, I can't fire everyone. Thus we are interdependent, which is why I pay them more than enough to meet their needs AND wants. The only difference between me and the guy who owns the land your commune is on, is that I give you the freedom to decide for yourself what your labor is worth. I'm not going to let someone else decide what you deserve based on THEIR needs.
@pimpdalyrical: Your workers OWN NO SHIT (the means of production) too. What you give them are just the bare necessities which keep them alive to work for you like... cattle. After ordering your cattle around to toil for you, you feed them and set them free. If they want to survive they must herd themselves into your fold again.
Right, I own A means of production, the business. Believe me, I give more than the bare necessities. They don't need me, unlike you, they don't need a community to take care of them. They also have the opportuiniy to purchase, or develop, their own means of production.
Somebody's name is on the deed to that land your commune is on. You dont own any of it, you're there by someone else's good graces. Don't kid yourself, you're not free.
@pimpdalyrical: "They also have the opportuiniy to purchase, or develop, their own means of production."
If they had, they would have left a long time ago and you would have none to work for you. If they must continue to work, it means that their payment are NOT enough to afford the means of production to work for themselves.
I don't live in any commune, mind you. Because of your stupidity, you wrongly deduce that I must have lived in one when I defend communes and co-ops.
@DonKhoi " If they do not work for you they will starve to death."
False, That's more true of the commune. If you don't work, they can vote the food right off your plate. The difference being, they don't have to work for ME!!
The capitalist worker chooses his labor. Based on his ability and his own determination of his needs. Not a single one of these people I employ are incapable of survival without me. If they were that pathetic, I wouldn't buy their help.
@pimpdalyrical: "Not a single one of these people I employ are incapable of survival without me."
I amaze at your stupidity. What can they do without the means of production and after they have consumed everything?
"If you don't work, they can vote the food right off your plate." Children in the FEC often don't work, so do the elderly, but their needs are still met.
I was thinking more about Stalin, but Lenin's rise thanks to the destitute squaller communal ownership of production left Russia in is a good example of what I'm talking about. When the commune has enough people who can't leave (hding from the law, drug addict, whatever) who want more, their dictator will arise amidst applause.
@pimpdalyrical: Btw, anybody can leave the commune or co-op if they want to. Those who leave will be furnished by those who stay the MoP necessary so that they can fend for themselves after leaving.
@pimpdalyrical: "When I want food, I grow it, I eat it."
If your want food, because the MoP (in this case, land) are yours, they cannot grow and eat any food according to their wish but according to your whims. So your workers are NOT free.
1. My workers also own their own land, (their home) that I have no control over.
2. My workers are free to become their own business owner as i did. I pay much more than i started my business with. Some take home more than I do. You're understanding of economics is weak. Owning the means of Production is an EXPENSE that my workers enjoy not having to make. It's a trade off they agree to voluntarily.
3. Your mind is in a commune, even if your body isn't.
@pimpdalyrical: You just also know that in the FEC, the commune does NOT control their members' behaviour during free time after work. Because every family there have everything they need, including a house, NO one is allowed to violate others' house because that amounts to taking from others what they need.
"Because every family there have everything they need"
Says who? The website? The vote? The few who don't leave? What happens to that man that takes from another's home? Is he kicked out to starve to death on his own? If he could have made it in the rest of society he would right? You kick him out, where does he go? This society gives options. The "community" doesn't allow for competitors. you either work for the commune, or you're gone right?
@pimpdalyrical: "What happens to that man that takes from another's home? Is he kicked out to starve to death on his own?"
There had been no record of those who are kicked out because they take from others' house. No one had ever done that. they have everything they need and they use it wisely so that they will not have to take from others.
@DonKhoi Your assuming everyone wants the MoP. They don't, otherwise, they would get it, because they can.
Most people want to go home after 8 hours, they want that guaranteed paycheck, not taking some home only when there's something left, they want to use the MoP, not be responsible for it.
When Everybody earns (cost of MoP), without having to provide it, you're left with nobody willing to provide MoP. If people's labor isnt worth doing, they wont do it. No matter what system is in place.
@pimpdalyrical: Of course, there will be some SERVILE enough to want to submit to bosses instead of standing on their own feet.
"they want to use the MoP, not be responsible for it." In a Commune or Co-op, everybody MUST BE responsible for maintaining the MoP. After all, they own it in common and all have a say on how to use it. That's why communal ownership helps people to develop more sense of responsibility.
@DonKhoi "there will be some SERVILE enough to want to submit to bosses instead of standing on their own feet."
Of course. Look at how many people are willing to have the fruits of their labor divided amongst a community.
", everybody MUST BE responsible for maintaining the MoP."
So if you don't pull your own weight, you're outta there? I'm starting to wonder why I would do this instead of working for a business, where I decide my value, instead of somebody else determining my need?
@pimpdalyrical: "But then again, what's in a name? He does support intrusion, read his articles for the Guardian."
"Now, the same crew that tapped our pockets two years ago is eagerly pitching the line that their bailout was good for us. It may be the case that the history books are written by the winners, but that doesn't prevent the rest of us from telling the truth." Dean Baker mocking the bailout of Big Guys by means of Government Intervention, "Wall Street's greatest heist: the Tarp"
Baker's point in both those quotes is a problem with the continued existence of the rich and bankers, not that government intrusion caused their problems to begin with. He's pissed that government is going to save them, not the inherent extra influence they will have because of it. There's a difference.
Wanting to let them fail is great, you gotta want the free market that created them in the first place to continue, before you dodge the liberal label.
@pimpdalyrical: "He's pissed that government is going to save them." This proves my point, namely, that Baker hates to see government intervention into the market.
You must read Baker's articles on the Guardian in conjunction with many of his other works. In "the Con-Nanny State," he demonstrated how Government Intervention, NOT THE FREE MARKET, had created Big Guys at first hand. Now those Big Guys again want Government to save them.
I have yet to see a Baker article admonishing a government intrusion that takes down a free market entity, or restricts their rights as equal members of a society. He only seems to hate it when government steps in for their benefit. That tells me it's corporatism he hates, not government.
If there's an example of this that I haven't seen, let me know.
@pimpdalyrical: Baker may not be an Anarchist, he perhaps wanted only a minimal government. However, because government is prone to corruption, it will assist a few who enlist its help to prevail over others. I only take his analysis far enough to come to the conclusion that government should not exist so that it will not be abused.
I could sympathize with Baker on that point. There will be government, it has a purpose. The conservative fights to keep any power seeking people from their goal, be it corporate, or government. The simple fact is that in order for a Corporate fatcat to attain that power, they would need to go through a powerful overreaching government. The free market doesn't allow for it alone. So restricting government is really just plugging the outlet for intrusive power, from anybody.
@pimpdalyrical: "The current issue is whether we will again grant special treatment to the financial industry by allowing them to skirt the legal procedures required for foreclosures. In the land of endless affirmative action for the rich, the smart money is on the banks. After all, huge multinational banks can't be expected to read all the fine-print that binds the rest of us." Dean Baker exposing how Government Intervention enriching bankers to the detriment of tax-payers.
@pimpdalyrical: ""As long as Dean Baker does not favour government intervention into the market, he is not a Keynesian."
But then again, what's in a name? He does support intrusion, read his articles for the Guardian."
I think you deserve to be called the Stupidest Creature in the Universe. Dean Baker doesn't. He exposes how government intervention benefits Business at the cost of tax-payers.
@pimpdalyrical: In "The US economy is not yet on the road to recovery," Baker wrote: "Getting the economy growing at a more rapid pace will require another round of stimulus from the government." This comment is HIGHLY DESCRIPTIVE. He wasn't prescribing government intrusion into the market at all.
Baker merely demonstrated that, because too much government intervention into the market had caused disaster, now the same amount of government intervention is required, thus making the market dependent on government, where as the market should not be so. It's just like government beating the market to pulp and now returning as a healer.
@pimpdalyrical: "So, consensus is built by being argued into foregoing your ideals. Got it. Sounds great, can't wait to join and live exactly how the community wants."
The Capitalist Society is merely a Big "community." You must live accordingly with the norms of the Capitalist "community," e.g. don't trespass others' property. And yet you call this not "liv[ing] exactly how the community (read: Capitalist Society) wants."
@DonKhoi "The Capitalist Society is merely a Big "community." You must live accordingly with the norms of the Capitalist "community,"
And yet, smack in the middle of the capitalist nation, are communes where you can go live in a communist Utopia. It's not that you can't do what you want, it's just that your going to face the consequences of your choices. The rest of the people are not beholden to guaranteeing you success in your chosen path.
@pimpdalyrical: Well, if I can live in a commune, I will still try to convince my peers not to violate the property of self-employed people and capitalist bosses elsewhere. I am pretty much of an isolationist. If workers in any capitalist enterprise do not want to revolt against their bosses, then fine. Whether they will revolt or not is not my business.
Well I guess I would have to put myself in that camp. I wouldn't include the anarchy part. There are communally agreed to laws that protect me to an extent. I wouldn't want total Anarchy, as i have always defined it. But that's just me. I don't see anything wrong with a person choosing, or having the option of choosing to be a wroker for a boss. It's a simpler life than being self efficient. I don't look down on them, or assume its because they can't be the boss.
@pimpdalyrical: "It's a simpler life than being self efficient." That's why I think communal living will be much harder because it requires too many responsibilities concerning how to use the means of production.
@pimpdalyrical: However, if any capitalist bosses forbid me to preach to their workers about co-ops, then they had violated my freedom of speech. I only preach, the choice to revolt or not is theirs, not mine.
Likewise, you can come to any commune and preach to them that it should be converted into a Capitalist Enterprise. If they forbid to to preach about Capitalism, they will violate your freedom of speech. The choice to convert their commune into a Capitalist Enterprise is theirs also.
@pimpdalyrical: "It's not that you can't do what you want, it's just that your going to face the consequences of your choices. The rest of the people are not beholden to guaranteeing you success in your chosen path."
This is the Individualist Anarchist position also. They preach against both Capitalist Enterprise with Bosses and Workers and even Communes. They want all to be self-employed.
You seem to, at least, respect the idea of being able to decide what a
person does for themselves. But, you seem to have disdain for the
natural result of being free to make those choices:
A stratified outcome. Free people make different choices, thus experience different consequences. You can't have one without the other. That's not an unintended consequence, or a necessary evil. It's the best part about it.
I think I could label you the most stupid creature ever born on the face of the Earth. When I mean servile, I mean those who accept every order from their bosses WITHOUT ARGUING BACK FOR FEAR THAT THEY WILL BE FIRED SHOULD THEY QUESTION THEIR BOSSES' AUTHORITY.
@pimpdalyrical: And moreover, for SERVILE, I also mean THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO HAVE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION BUT DO NOT WANT TO WORK FOR THEMSELVES BUT RATHER SUBMIT TO A BOSS.
If your workers argue with you demanding more payment, they are NOT servile towards you. Likewise, in a Commune or Co-Op, when members argue with each other for the sake of their self-interests, they are also in no wise servile towards each other.
@pimpdalyrical: I should also say that even Individualist Anarchists, who prefer self-employment (they vehemently opposed capitalist wage-labour) also acknowledge that workers' co-ops and communes which are built ON A STRICTLY VOLUNTARY BASIS are legitimate from the stand-point of Individualist Anarchism.
@pimpdalyrical: "Owning the means of Production is an EXPENSE that my workers enjoy not having to make."
It is BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION (many libertarians had exposed that this crisis result from too much government intervention) IN FAVOUR OF BOSSES LIKE YOU that they cannot afford the means of production to quit your fold. that's why i said after reading Baker's book they will revolt.
Government intervention doesn't help me. Government intervention is usually to either A) surpress my freedom and thus restrict what I have to give employees, generally to buy votes from hippie numbskulls,
Or B) a mandate menat to help one of my competitors by restricting me. Like regulations only big companies can afford to add to their product (I'm a small business so far)
@pimpdalyrical: "There are three basic ways in which the government provides subsidies to small businesses: favorable tax treatment, below market rate loans, and exemptions from labor and safety standards that apply to other businesses."
@pimpdalyrical: "But more important than the specific policies designed for small businesses is the recognition that the free market is not generally friendly to small businesses — the vast majority of small business owners are heavily dependent on the special treatment they get from the nanny state. Most small businesses are constantly struggling and usually only survive a short time. But without special treatment on taxes, loans, and regulations, even fewer would survive"
@pimpdalyrical: Baker concluded: "While small business owners across the country like to envision themselves as tough individualists, the reality is that they are actually among the prime beneficiaries of the conservative nanny state."
You can read the whole Chapter Seven of Baker's "Conservative Nanny State" online to see how you are treated favourably by government even without your knowledge.
@pimpdalyrical: Don't try to fool yourself. Government help all capitalists, great or small, so long as they can keep proletarians in check. That's why I become an Anarchist.
Baker is a noted "progressive" writer for liberal publications and regularly contributes to NPR. You'll excuse me if I don't revere his biased opinion. For starters he makes the false assumption that Big business owners who have used the capitalist system, are steadfast adhearents to conservatism. The true conservative capitalist understands that gaurantees, even the ones they may benefit from, restrict their individual will.
@pimpdalyrical: What's in the name? Baker is NOT a statist liberal who favor government intervention into the market, whether it helps Big or Small Business Owners or even the Poor.
@pimpdalyrical: "regularly contributes to NPR." Roderick Tracy Long is a noted Left-Libertarian Free Marketeer who contributed regular to right-wing websites such as Mises Institute or Reason Magazine. Does it say anything about his true Political Affiliation?
@pimpdalyrical When you are dictator over your property ONLY YOU HAVE A SAY (NOT SOMEBODY WHO DO NOT OWN YOUR PROPERTY) ON HOW TO USE AND ABUSE IT.
All members in a Commune and Workers' Co-Op are DICTATORS OVER THEIR OWN COMMON PROPERTY. NO ONE FROM OUTSIDE CAN TELL THEM HOW THEY SHOULD USE IT, ONLY MEMBERS WITHIN THE COMMUNE OR CO-OP CAN DECIDE HOW TO USE IT.
When you are dictator over your property YOU HAVE A SAY ON HOW TO USE AND ABUSE IT.
All members in a Commune and Workers' Co-Op are DICTATORS OVER THEIR OWN COMMON PROPERTY. NO ONE FROM OUTSIDE CAN TELL THEM HOW THEY SHOULD USE IT, ONLY MEMBERS WITHIN THE COMMUNE OR CO-OP CAN DECIDE HOW TO USE IT.
@pimpdalyrical: By the way, if you say you are a Conservative, I'm sure as Hell that Old Rightist Isolationists like Murray Rothbard will keep a distance from you.
"Especially if you got from some academic who couldn't face having to compete so became a teacher when he ran out of classes to take."
@pimpdalyrical: By the way, if you say you are a Conservative, I'm sure as Hell that Old Rightist Isolationists like Murray Rothbard will keep a distance from you.
"Especially if you got from some academic who couldn't face having to compete so became a teacher when he ran out of classes to take."
Freed Negro slaves, as Spooner himself observed (Natural Law) and Rothbard later echoed (Ethics of Liberty), were left without any lands or tools to fend for themselves, they felt obliged to work either for Northern Capitalists or even their former slave-masters who now became capitalist employers.
If the journals truly wrote about that, I sympathize with your ancestors (but not you).
I don't need or desire, or deserve your sympathy. Slavery was over a hundred years ago and I got civil rights before I was born. My fate is up to me now.
As for the slaves, they got the same nothing the earlier settlers of this land had to work with. Many of them went North and got jobs doing what they had experience doing, and became land owners themselves. Not sure what you really expected them to get. At best they were owed a trip home, but they were allowed to stay.
@pimpdalyrical: Chattel slaves in Brazil can literally purchased their liberty to become self-employed, capitalists, or even... slave-owners in their turn. Will that justify slavery?
By analogy, wage-workers can become self-employed or capitalists bosses in the future, will that justify Capitalist Wage-Labour?
Can't talk all day today, there's apparently a shooting happening at a college campus near my business in Austin Tx. Probably some leftist nut pissed about having to take responsibility for himself, instead of spreading it around. Peace out for now.
This is a hypothetical scenario THE ONLY THREE CHARACTERS (no place for your lawyer) IN WHICH ARE I, an industrial miner with modern weapons which crave for diamonds under a farm owned by you, a primitive farmer. That's why if consensus cannot be reached and conflict occurs, I will win.
Nevertheless, Karl Hess, the bystander, would find my actions objectionable and accused me of violating your property rights.
Sure, let's go with your artifical scenario. You're the better armed industrialist, I'm the lowly farmer and there's no law. Yes, you will take me out and get my land. Thus, you have lived by the laws of nature, which is what you say you want to do. The point is, If I chose to live in that world, can I argue about it? Nope.
But tell me, what's the difference between your industrialist in the magical land of no laws, and the Communist government that's above them anyway?
Yeah, somehow Cameron forgot that Native American's were guilty of some of the most brutal warfare recorded in history. Scalping? Who the hell else thought of that?
We didn't do anything to the indians they weren't doing to each other already. The most common thing tribes asked for in exchange for showing us the ropes in the new world: Help them wipe out the next tribe over!
Fuck the indians
Fuck The overgrown smurfs
Fuck anybody who thinks I should feel bad about being American.
Nah, I'll just go fill a native American whore's mouth with my feces. Practice for the next time I have an extra $10.00 to spend on your mom.
They lost their land because God hates them. Their centuries of raping and plundering each other left them devided, so they couldn't stand against the Europeans. Fuck em' Should have let them go extinct.
@pimpdalyrical: Black peoples also had been massacring each other so much that they were divided and could not stand the might of Arab slave-raiders and Europeans colonists. So will that justify slavery, imperialism, KKK's lynching, and many other kinds of hate-crimes?
Of course not. The point is, American people today don't have anything to justify. People in the past did horrible things to each other. I don't owe anybody anything because of it, because somewhere in their history, is somebody doing horrible things to somebody else too.
Grow up, get over it, and focus you're energy on what's ahead.
@pimpdalyrical: Then why do you want to shit the mouth of a Native American woman just because her ancestors did some bad things? And why then you wish for their extinction because their ancestors had done bad things also?
I thought all you hippies jerked off to Darwin theory. Don't we owe it to the future of our species to remove inferiors from the gene pool?
I don't want to fill her mouth with shit because of her ancestors, but to express how much I care about her people's culture. Call it performance art.
@pimpdalyrical: Natural Selection has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. If an organism can adapt to the environment it will survive. Supposed that in the future the Sun emit more radiation, the fairer-skinned people, having less melanie and thus being more prone to skin cancer, will die off; however civilized they are compared to their darker-skinned fellows.
You have not a clue about how natural selection works. Even if you be right, you commit naturalistic fallacy.
@pimpdalyrical: Btw, how are Negroids and Mongoloids inferior to Caucasoids?
I should also tell you that Guilt or Honor by Association is fallacious. That some Europeans did something great in the past does not entail that their descendants must be great.
Never said they were. Liberals. Always focused on race and how people look.
If that were the case, I would be saying I am inferior to caucasoids, numbnuts, try and keep up.
It's culture, and inferior ones need to die out. Leftist liberalism and Euro style socialism have had their neck on the chopping block for a century. Time to pull the lever.
And it's Melanin, and under evolution theory the white people will adapt like everyone else to solar changes.
Your example is Lamarckian, not Darwinian. White People cannot increase their amount of melanin to adapt to a sudden increase of solar radiation in my hypothetical future. They will inevitably die out of skin cancer unless some of their children happen to have a beneficial mutation such as having more melanin, and thus having a darker skin-tone, to cope. with more intense radiation.
Darwin was not the birth of evolution theory. People with high levels of Melanin evolved that trait to adapt to their environment, why wouldn't white people continue to evolve if the circumstances changed? Logically, they would cease to be "White" at that point, but unless the solar change is some hollywood dramatic instantaneous shift, the people will adapt. The same way there were no white bears until they migrated into the arctic.
Right, the ones that turned into birds survived, and the human race, all races, will turn into something else if the environment dictates it. That's how the evolution theory works.
Don't forget the ancinet theropods died out because of a sudden catastrophic event, not a global environment shift over thousands of years. They had survived those numerous times before their extinction.
So, where's the anarchy? How do you keep things equally ditributed without someone to regulate it, in an environment where members are naturally stratified in their abilities, needs, production, and desires? These kinds of ideas always seem to sound nice on paper, but fall flat when you insert human nature. Is there some historical success of this idea you can point to? It doesn't sound like a new idea soo far.
@pimpdalyrical: Distribution according to needs is not equal distribution. Egalitarianism has nothing to do with distribution, but that every individual with optimal reasoning capacities (even child prodigies and experienced old people) will ALL HAVE A SAY in the decision-making process on how to use the means of production to serve the needs of all.
Btw, in the FEC neither rulers nor regulators exist.
As for Avatar, does anybody notice that at the beginning the humans were trying to negotiate for resources, and the mercenaries only had to be called in for protection from radicals?
Also, what is this mineral for? Does it cure cancer or something? Maybe it fulfills a greater need for humans than just dirt the N'avi walk on! By your reasoning, it should be taken from them according to who needs it, right?
Under it all though, it's just anti american, environmentalist horseshit.
@pimpdalyrical: If the Na'vi do not agree to move, then the negotiation fails and humans have no right to violate the Na'vi's private property, their planet. Don't get me wrong, I watched the movie myself and saw that the Na'vi had conceded by allowing human to built some research facilities. They only refused to concede any further.
An analogy: suppose you are a farmer who happen to live upon a diamond mine, and I am a greedy miner who want those valuable ores. What if I come with a gun?
@DonKhoi If you're a "greedy miner" who wants what's under my farm, bring your checkbook, and we will make a deal.
What happens in your FEC when someone has a need for something another doesn't want to give up? What happnes when joe hippy realizes his hour spent building a house is worth more than your hour dread-locking hair? Just because it hasn't failed yet, doesn't make it a success. This isn't new, when did it work before?
@pimpdalyrical: What if you refuse to move out, and I come with weapons to force you to leave?
"Just because it hasn't failed yet, doesn't make it a success." Could I equally say that because Capitalism hasn't failed yet does not make it a success? Moreover, you seem to be a soothsayer to see their eventual failure.
@DonKhoi " What if you refuse to move out, and I come with weapons to force you to leave?"
We have consensus laws in our capitalist society that prevent that, and provide a better outlet. We have property rights, because we believe in having PROPERTY. Capitalsim created the only surviving economic superpower on the planet, in less than 200 years, plus is the support system for your little cultural experiments out in the woods. Still looking for capitalist educated horticulturists?
@pimpdalyrical: Then why violate the Na'vi's property, as David Boaz called it? By analogy, why violate Australian Aborigines, Native Americans' property?
@DonKhoi "Then why violate the Na'vi's property, as David Boaz called it?"
Need. The same reason the tall blue hypocrits from the movie shoot an animal and eat it. Did the animal agree to die? No, but they thanked it anyway.
Also, I have never heard of this Boaz, and I'm sure he hasn't actually talked to any conservatives about the film. Their problem isn't the fighting. It's the pagan tree worshipping Enviro garbage that makes them gag.
Watch the "How it should have ended' for this movie.
@pimpdalyrical: Your ignorance is outstanding. David Boaz is the FOUNDER OF THE RIGHTIST CATO INSTITUTE.
"Need." So you basically say that because Earthlings and Na'vi are two different species, so they can violate each other's property, just like lions and zebra? This David Boaz would disapprove.
What was so wrong with Nature worshipping? I consider Christianity to be the stupidest religion on Earth?
Yeah, see conservatives like to think for ourselves and do our own research. We don't get our ideas from thinktanks and institutes, like Center for American progress and organizing for America, who are setting the Washington agenda right now.
"What was so wrong with Nature worshipping?"
Because it's predicated on feeling bad about, or flat denying our rightful place dominating this planet. Its really about halting advancement, so that we remain weak and dependent on gov't.
@DonKhoi "And what is so wrong about living harmonically with nature?"
Who says we're not? Animals kill each other all the time. There isn't a single thing on this planet we use that wasn't provided by nature. Oil? Natural. Penicillin? Natural. Silicon? Natural. The Atom? Natural
Really, what's the difference between that, and artifically ending the life of some animal or plant?
Evolution gave you a brain, and you're actually refusing to use it.
@pimpdalyrical: "Evolution gave you a brain, and you're actually refusing to use it."
It was you who refused to use it. According to your logic: because the Na'vi worshiped Nature instead of conquering it like Earthlings, they do not deserve property rights.
I'm not the one advocating joining a commune with no property rights, you are.
In real life, It's the capitalist society of laws based on INDIVIDUAL ownership of property and production that PROTECTS you from people like the Mercs in that work of fiction.
Make sure not to express any domination over nature out there in the woods, aerating land for crops with your evil "hoe" technology raping the land.
@pimpdalyrical: First, ONE INDIVIDUAL OR COMMUNE'S property rights must not be violate by other individual or commune. Communal Ownership may be formed on a Strictly Voluntary Basis with somebody one likes and not other one dislikes.
Sure it is. Til somebody you really need decides to leave. Then what? You gonna just do without a doctor? Or you gonna offer him or her what they're really worth?
What are you gonna do when the next commune over starts using your water source as a sewer?
You building your little Utopia in the US? Better give it back to the indians. Wouldn't want you feeling bad about your little venture.
I didn't think Avatar was a commentary on Capitalism because in Capitalism all interactions and transactions for goods and services are voluntary and consensual. In the movie, the mercenaries eventually just resort to piracy to get what they want. That's not capitalist ... that's criminal and wrong ... which I guess is why they're the bad guys. :)
HumbleWillis 3 months ago
I like the effects of avatar but not so much the leftist sublimmal message. My advice is to watch non-pc historcial accurate versions of Last Samurai ( Crouching Tiger),
DWW ( Last of the Morchians), Pochahontos ( The New World), District 9 ( any anti-apartheid, minus that chessy one with Tom Robbins and Derek Luke- more pro-commie than anti-apartheid- movie that involves Black Humans and NOT aliens from outer space that you f..king hate). District 9 looked more like a pro-Apartheid movie
kevyster 1 year ago
So, when republicans do it, it's negotiation, but when democrats do it, it's bribery?
Don't you think you would have credibility if you can show the videos you made of you complaining when this was done by republicans?
You don't have any? You didn't make any? Then you are nothing more than a hypocrite.
And when it ACTUALLY happens, you say NOTHING.
DO A SEARCH FOR: 8 Kentucky Republicans Convicted Of Extortion, Vote Buying & Selling, Tampering With Voting Machines
PaulinaPaulino 1 year ago
@PaulinaPaulino Wouldn't the fact that they were convicted of a crime, kind of point out that something was done about it?
mrrossn 9 months ago
@mrrossn It does. But my comment was directed to the maker of this video.
In his world "The World Works" when Democrats are accused of something, they are guilty, but if a GOP is convicted of something, it is either activist judges, or, not to be discussed.
That was my point about HTWW's hypocrisy.
PaulinaPaulino 9 months ago
@PaulinaPaulino I have watched this guy for awhile, & it seems that if someone is doing something he doesn't like or he thinks is wrong he calls them on it, he gives his point of view, it just happens he doesn't see eye to eye with Liberals & Dems to much, personally, I don't see eye to eye with them either, but that is just me. But say what you want it is his Chanel on a public forum, and if we have to grin & take the stupidity of Liberal groups at colleges when I try to go to class, well FOS
mrrossn 9 months ago
@mrrossn I agree. It is his channel and he can do what ever he likes with it.
That does not mean he is not a hypocrite.
PaulinaPaulino 9 months ago
Avatar is what Goebbels would be very proud of. It makes unsuspecting audience unconsciously relate to the Navi and portray people (mercenaries) and technology overall as fundamentally evil. If you look at color, warm is used when showing Pandora - cold when showing the mercenaries. Happiness when showing Navi - loneliness - people, etc. it's throughtout
Overall, this movie can't be explained by anything other that Cameron is a eugenicist.
prikhod 1 year ago
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative."
John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington (March 1866)
This is actually a stronger indictment against Conservatives. Use the Venn diagram and you will see that Mill meant that Conservatives only come from stupid people.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
You do know that "Conservative" meant something different to 1800's Britain than it does in today's America right?
Of course, that's beside the fact that there's no reason I should care what he thought.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
And now let us go back to the cultural issues. Even if Aboriginal cultures, for some strange reasons whatsoever, are "inferior" to European cultures, there's no justification for European Imperialists to conquer them, strip them of their property, and force the latter's culture upon the former.
Cultures, unlike organisms, do NOT evolve (having descendants which can adapt to the new or changing environment) but change when people abandons some practices and invent others.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi " there's no justification for European Imperialists to conquer them, strip them of their property, and force the latter's culture upon the former."
Sure there is. It's the better life their future generations will lead with the better technology and education our culture created. If our culture wasn't better, they wouldn't have lost. Reality doesn't have tree Gods that summon bats and shit, Nor should it. It was a dying way of life and they should have accepted what we had to offer.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: So can agnostic atheists violate Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and religious people's property laws because agnosticism/atheism will offer better education free from religious indoctrination based on fear and ignorance of natural phenomena, such as thunder, lightning? (I am a Strong Atheist, mind you)
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
No, We have property laws here. The indians didn't, they raped, pillaged, and stole each other's lands all the time. They were not peaceful. We were coming whether they liked it or not, like a force of nature, and they refused to adapt, instead responding with violence. They got dealt with.
PS. religious private schools are kicking the crap out of your agnostic/secular government schools in academic performance. So, it would be the other way around.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "The indians didn't, they raped, pillaged, and stole each other's lands all the time."
That would not justify stealing their lands and resources and force them to adopt your culture. Just because two individuals are violating each other's their property rights does not justify the action of a Third Party who kill them both and take their property
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
"That would not justify stealing their lands and resources and force them to adopt your culture."
Why not? They do it, and they sure as hell didn't offer the next tribe over the chance to learn from each other like the Euros did.
What is it you think the indians did that was soo great? Education? Cultivation? They were Theistic Religious Monarchies, you should hate that!
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical: "They were Theistic Religious Monarchies, you should hate that!"
I abhor their cultures like I abhor my Christian neighbour. But I cannot bring myself to violate his property rights.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical:
"They do it, and they sure as hell didn't offer the next tribe over the chance to learn from each other like the Euros did."
Tu Quoque argument is... Fallacious.
As I have said, because Negroes killed, plundered, raped, and enslaved each other, would it justify European conquest and enslavement of them?
Herbert Spencer's and my answer is a resounding "No!"
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: What "forced of nature?" Modern weapons, not culture. European Cultures cannot killed Native Americans, robbed them of their lands, and herded them into concentration camps. Not because Europeans culture is superior, but because Europeans HAPPENED to practice such cultures.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
The human brain, which thought up all those neat weapons, is a natural phenomena. Everything that went into the design, manufacture, and use of those weapons, came from right here on planet earth. Much like the lion, who champions natural selection with the claws and teeth nature gave him.
The first thing the indians did when the Europeans got here was deal with them to kill the next tribe over. The natives here were behind the times, in arms, civility, and thinkin down the road.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "The desire to command is essentially a barbarous desire. ... Command cannot be otherwise than savage, for it implies an appeal to force, should force be needful. ... Command is the foe of peace, for it breeds war of words and feelings – sometimes of deeds. It is inconsistent with the first law of morality. It is radically wrong. ... "You must do not as you will, but as I will," is the basis of every mandate, whether used by a planter to his Negro, or by a husband to his wife."
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: The quotes was from Social Statics, the author was libertarian thinker Herbert Spencer, who coined the term "Survival of the Fittest."
Negores of course killed, plundered, and raped each other, but Spencer also made clear that Black enslavement was never justified.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi I'll make sure and remind you how much you hate servitude when you're telling somebody in your commune they should produce more. That's where eveyr Marxist experiment leads, yours will too.
Now if you'll excuse me, those laborers I exploit while providing their needs, wants, and hopes for their families, need me to risk everything of my own some more.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "those laborers I exploit while providing their needs, wants, and hopes for their families, need me to risk everything of my own some more."
Because they unfortunately do not have the means of production, they must either work for you or starve to death. If they do, I doubt they will.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi "Because they unfortunately do not have the means of production."
THey can if they want to. I do because I chose to. The government doesn't run my industry yet. Anybody can have the means of production in this capitalism. That's how it works. They choose to earn a living helping me instead, because they don't want to take the added risks.
You'll figure that out as your commune promises more than it's people can deliver.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: You can read the free-market libertarian economist Dean Baker's "The Conservative Nanny State," Chapter 7, Small Business Babies, to see how GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION INTO THE MARKET help small businessmen like you (not wage-workers, of course) stay afloat. If your wage-workers read that book, I think they will start to embrace at least Proudhonian Mutualism.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: You think you receive no favourable treatment from the Governement! The reverse is true!
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: You still NOT understand natural selection. The conflict between Europeans and Negroes et al. is NOT NATURAL SELECTION, merely competition WITHIN A CERTAIN ENVIRONMENT.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical
If suddenly the Sun increase its radiation and Europeans cannot give birth to darker-skin offspring, regardless of how advanced their brain is, they will NOT survive.
Because dark-skin folks, regardless of their primitive culture, are the FITTEST (that's how Darwin and Spencer understood it) under the NEW ENVIRONMENT WITH INTENSE SUNLIGHT, so they will survive.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
That's what it is, you're just a white hating bigot. I was wondering where this hatred of advanced civilazation comes from. As much as I would love to say my black skin is due to being superior, it's really just a product of my environment. If the sun radiance decreases, I won't have the ability to absorb as much Vitamin D either, and the white's will have the advantage.
What conflict between Euro's and Negros? White americans fought other white americans over slavery.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: I am not a White hater. If not, why the Hell had I quoted Spencer so favourably , a White Anglo-Saxon thinker? Although an Asian by birth, I wasn't influenced by Confucius but Western thinkers. Neither do I hate civilization, like Spencer, I hate those, thinking they are civilized, bestow upon them the right to enslave other primitive folks.
Don't you deny that French colonizers of Africa are not Caucasoids ? Are not Arabs slave-raiders Caucasoids also?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: My example about the possible extinction of White bloodline is completely hypothetical. If the Sun Radiation is intense enough, bronze-skinned Native Americans and Asians like me would bite the dust also, leaving on the face of the Earth only Black members of the homo sapiens species. Would you say that I am a self-hating Asian.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical:
I only demonstrate that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Evolution via natural Selection. Cultural Superiority or the lack thereof will NOT help you survive should the Environment change.
And so, stop your ignorant rantings, based on your complete misunderstanding of evolution, about eliminating "bad" elements from the gene pools.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "White americans fought other white americans over slavery."
Among them was Lysander Spooner, an ardent Abolitionist but who despised Lincoln and the Civil War, which was waged not to abolish slavery, but to serve the interest of Northern Industrial Magnates.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical: "What conflict between Euro's and Negros?" The Anglo-Zulu War in 1879.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "What conflict between Euro's and Negros?"
The Scramble of Africa from 1885-1910, the Anglo-Zulu War, etc.
Of course, Black Africans were not angels. They commit atrocities against each other, violated each other 's personal and property rights from times immemorial. But under no circumstances can European atrocities toward them can be justified.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: You should study more about the Civil War than repeating Northern Propaganda about the "Abolition of Slavery."
Libertarian authors Mark Thornton and Robert B. Ekelund, Jr. had laid more emphasis on how high and low tariffs were favored between Northern industrial magnates and Southern slave-owners.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
I know all about the abolition of slavery, son. I have family journals from men who lived it.
Do you ever have a thought of your own? All you can do is quote. Just because somebody else said it doesn't make it right, or all that insightful. Being a conservative, liberal, libertarian, Christian, or atheist should come from within. Not a list of authors. Especially if you got from some academic who couldn't face having to compete so became a teacher when he ran out of classes to take.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
Comment removed
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: By the way, you are a hypocrite who like to commit the Tu Quoque Fallacy. That A and B do wrongs to each other does not justify C's aggression against both. That Blacks/Native Americans/Australian Aborigines violated each other's person and property rights does not justify European aggression.
So do you think that your Black ancestors deserve to be enslave by Whites because they are not angels. And by analogy, Native Americans to be conquered by Europeans?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: First, I select thinkers who wrote things THAT ARE THEMSELVES RATIONAL. I do not quote something because some famous thinkers said it. Spenecer only HAPPENED to state right things. That's all! You simply attack a strawman!
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
I attack your ideas based on their historical failure. You bring up what other people think to excuse your own rationalizing. I want to know what YOU think and feel, not who said it first. Use your own mind. Question with boldness even the existence of God, remember?
The past doesn't need to be justified. Just learned from. What's your justification for following in the footsteps of countless communist dictators, human rights violators, despots, and genocidal maniacs?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: First, those dictators practice "State Capitalism," under which regimes the means of production are concentrated in the hands of ruling bureaucracies who dictated their workers just like capitalist bosses. Workers had NO SAY on how to use the MoPs but must obey bureaucrats.
Marx, in contrast, advocates workers' co-ops, where everybody will HAVE A SAY.
So again you attack a strawman!
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Well, it was YOU who justified/rationized PAST European Atrocities against native Americans based on the fact that they are not good people, wasn't it?
As for me, NO WHERE had I justified Lenin's, Trotsky's, Stalin's, Mao's, Hoxha's, etc. atrocities?
All of them, merely authoritarian impostors who distorted Marx' and Engels' writings and masqueraded themselves as Marxists.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi Not really. I just don't owe them anything because of it.
Whine about what you think you are owed for past atrocities, after you have made up for the one's your own ancestors committed. I'm not gonna live my life bitter over history. It's pointless. Learn from it.
I don't attack a strawman, you advocate one. An unrealistic Utopia, that has never worked despite being tried. Slavery is just as often excused by having to fulfill other people's needs, as money. China, the soviets...
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "An unrealistic Utopia, that has never worked despite being tried."
The FEC DOES EXIST and IT SUCCEEDED IN REALITY. Because you are just so lazy that you don't bother to visit their website to see their successes.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Yes, I looked at the FEC website. Sorry, living in squaller with dykes isn't my thing. They still need of Capitalist educated farmer from the real world? Maybe it's the whole 'You're gonna grow it, and get a tent while we eat it' deal. Or maybe its the ambiguity of the ad, what happens after the growing season "April to "November" and their skills aren't useful? You can live how you want, but don't preach. You just have low expectations for yourself, not the moral high ground.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Having a say doesn't mean you have property rights. My property is not up to a vote. I don't just have a say, I'm the dictator of my property.
You really think your little commune won't out vote you if taking your property fulfills the "common need." Of course they will. You just haven't had to deal with it yet because they avoid that scenario like every other marxist experiment has. Not having anything to begin with. Equality is easy when the best you can do is the poverty line.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: I hadn't thought you are actually that STUPID.
First, I EXPOSED the fact that in the USSR, China, Albania, etc. the Party Bureaucrats OWNED the MOPs, ORDER THE OBEDIENT WORKERS AROUND, thus BEHAVED JUST LIKE DICTATORIAL CAPITALIST BOSSES OVER THEIR PROPERTY. In those countries only bureaucrats have property rights.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
The people gave those Dictators the means of production, because like your commune leaders, they promised to give it "to the people." It's an old trick, you're falling for it.
As for my employees, I have no option but to employ the voluntary. There's another guy they can go work for less than a mile away. They won't revolt, they can quit any time they like. They can even take what I teach them and become their own boss like I did. Can you?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "The people gave those Dictators the means of production"
Study history again, especially the October Revolution. After overthrowing Kerensky's bourgeois provisional government, the MoP are distributed amongst the Worker and Peasant Councils, but in 1918 Lenin decreed that the bureaucrats will manage the MoP. So the councils were actually ROBBED of their property.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
Comment removed
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Having demonstrated how only members within a commune or co-op can decide what to do with their common property, I will proceed to how the common owners will use it.
Because the MoP, more specifically, lands, tools, raw materials, are owned in common (AS INITIALLY AGREED ON A STRICTLY VOLUNTARY BASIS), decisions on how to use them to serve the needs of all will be by means of consensus.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
" only members within a commune or co-op can decide what to do with their common property,"
Exactly, COMMON property. Which means YOU don't own shit! Everything you have is up for a vote there isn't it? What happens when you disagree with the consensus over what you "need?" Do you even get to decide that, or is what a person "needs" predetermined before you even get there? The truth is, I'm free, you're not. When I want food, I grow it, I eat it. You need an ok from others.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Your workers are not free. If they want food, they cannot grow it but must work for you and then you leave them only the bare necessities to keep them alive while pocketing the surplus value. If they had read Dean Baker's book and know that because thanks to government intervention in the market that you are their boss, they will surely revolt.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical:
And you are NOT free neither. If you fire all your workers and no one comes to work for you, after you have consumed everything you will starve to death. You depend on them just like they depend on you.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
you're right there, I can't fire everyone. Thus we are interdependent, which is why I pay them more than enough to meet their needs AND wants. The only difference between me and the guy who owns the land your commune is on, is that I give you the freedom to decide for yourself what your labor is worth. I'm not going to let someone else decide what you deserve based on THEIR needs.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Your workers OWN NO SHIT (the means of production) too. What you give them are just the bare necessities which keep them alive to work for you like... cattle. After ordering your cattle around to toil for you, you feed them and set them free. If they want to survive they must herd themselves into your fold again.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Right, I own A means of production, the business. Believe me, I give more than the bare necessities. They don't need me, unlike you, they don't need a community to take care of them. They also have the opportuiniy to purchase, or develop, their own means of production.
Somebody's name is on the deed to that land your commune is on. You dont own any of it, you're there by someone else's good graces. Don't kid yourself, you're not free.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "They also have the opportuiniy to purchase, or develop, their own means of production."
If they had, they would have left a long time ago and you would have none to work for you. If they must continue to work, it means that their payment are NOT enough to afford the means of production to work for themselves.
I don't live in any commune, mind you. Because of your stupidity, you wrongly deduce that I must have lived in one when I defend communes and co-ops.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical:
"They don't need me" If they do not work for you they will starve to starve to death. Don't you deny that they need you?
"unlike you, they don't need a community to take care of them."
In the commune or coop, after you get what you need, you are free to use and abuse them. If you spend them unwisely, bad luck. Don't ask for more!
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi " If they do not work for you they will starve to death."
False, That's more true of the commune. If you don't work, they can vote the food right off your plate. The difference being, they don't have to work for ME!!
The capitalist worker chooses his labor. Based on his ability and his own determination of his needs. Not a single one of these people I employ are incapable of survival without me. If they were that pathetic, I wouldn't buy their help.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical: "Not a single one of these people I employ are incapable of survival without me."
I amaze at your stupidity. What can they do without the means of production and after they have consumed everything?
"If you don't work, they can vote the food right off your plate." Children in the FEC often don't work, so do the elderly, but their needs are still met.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
I was thinking more about Stalin, but Lenin's rise thanks to the destitute squaller communal ownership of production left Russia in is a good example of what I'm talking about. When the commune has enough people who can't leave (hding from the law, drug addict, whatever) who want more, their dictator will arise amidst applause.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Btw, anybody can leave the commune or co-op if they want to. Those who leave will be furnished by those who stay the MoP necessary so that they can fend for themselves after leaving.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "When I want food, I grow it, I eat it."
If your want food, because the MoP (in this case, land) are yours, they cannot grow and eat any food according to their wish but according to your whims. So your workers are NOT free.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
1. My workers also own their own land, (their home) that I have no control over.
2. My workers are free to become their own business owner as i did. I pay much more than i started my business with. Some take home more than I do. You're understanding of economics is weak. Owning the means of Production is an EXPENSE that my workers enjoy not having to make. It's a trade off they agree to voluntarily.
3. Your mind is in a commune, even if your body isn't.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: You just also know that in the FEC, the commune does NOT control their members' behaviour during free time after work. Because every family there have everything they need, including a house, NO one is allowed to violate others' house because that amounts to taking from others what they need.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
"Because every family there have everything they need"
Says who? The website? The vote? The few who don't leave? What happens to that man that takes from another's home? Is he kicked out to starve to death on his own? If he could have made it in the rest of society he would right? You kick him out, where does he go? This society gives options. The "community" doesn't allow for competitors. you either work for the commune, or you're gone right?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical: "What happens to that man that takes from another's home? Is he kicked out to starve to death on his own?"
There had been no record of those who are kicked out because they take from others' house. No one had ever done that. they have everything they need and they use it wisely so that they will not have to take from others.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical:
"you either work for the commune, or you're gone right?"
There had also been NO RECORD of those who must quit because they fall sick and cannot work.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi Your assuming everyone wants the MoP. They don't, otherwise, they would get it, because they can.
Most people want to go home after 8 hours, they want that guaranteed paycheck, not taking some home only when there's something left, they want to use the MoP, not be responsible for it.
When Everybody earns (cost of MoP), without having to provide it, you're left with nobody willing to provide MoP. If people's labor isnt worth doing, they wont do it. No matter what system is in place.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "Your assuming everyone wants the MoP. They don't, otherwise, they would get it, because they can."
Dean Baker prove that even if they want MoP, they cannot because of so much government intervention in favour of their bosses.
Thanks to too much government intervention, the economy is weak, That's why your workers cannot afford to have the MoP.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Of course, there will be some SERVILE enough to want to submit to bosses instead of standing on their own feet.
"they want to use the MoP, not be responsible for it." In a Commune or Co-op, everybody MUST BE responsible for maintaining the MoP. After all, they own it in common and all have a say on how to use it. That's why communal ownership helps people to develop more sense of responsibility.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi "there will be some SERVILE enough to want to submit to bosses instead of standing on their own feet."
Of course. Look at how many people are willing to have the fruits of their labor divided amongst a community.
", everybody MUST BE responsible for maintaining the MoP."
So if you don't pull your own weight, you're outta there? I'm starting to wonder why I would do this instead of working for a business, where I decide my value, instead of somebody else determining my need?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: In a Commune, everybody ALWAYS ARGUE so that their interests can be wholly satisfied.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi "In a Commune, everybody ALWAYS ARGUE so that their interests can be wholly satisfied."
So, consensus is built by being argued into foregoing your ideals. Got it. Sounds great, can't wait to join and live exactly how the community wants.
"As long as Dean Baker does not favour government intervention into the market, he is not a Keynesian."
But then again, what's in a name? He does support intrusion, read his articles for the Guardian.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "But then again, what's in a name? He does support intrusion, read his articles for the Guardian."
"Now, the same crew that tapped our pockets two years ago is eagerly pitching the line that their bailout was good for us. It may be the case that the history books are written by the winners, but that doesn't prevent the rest of us from telling the truth." Dean Baker mocking the bailout of Big Guys by means of Government Intervention, "Wall Street's greatest heist: the Tarp"
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Baker's point in both those quotes is a problem with the continued existence of the rich and bankers, not that government intrusion caused their problems to begin with. He's pissed that government is going to save them, not the inherent extra influence they will have because of it. There's a difference.
Wanting to let them fail is great, you gotta want the free market that created them in the first place to continue, before you dodge the liberal label.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "He's pissed that government is going to save them." This proves my point, namely, that Baker hates to see government intervention into the market.
You must read Baker's articles on the Guardian in conjunction with many of his other works. In "the Con-Nanny State," he demonstrated how Government Intervention, NOT THE FREE MARKET, had created Big Guys at first hand. Now those Big Guys again want Government to save them.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
I have yet to see a Baker article admonishing a government intrusion that takes down a free market entity, or restricts their rights as equal members of a society. He only seems to hate it when government steps in for their benefit. That tells me it's corporatism he hates, not government.
If there's an example of this that I haven't seen, let me know.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Baker may not be an Anarchist, he perhaps wanted only a minimal government. However, because government is prone to corruption, it will assist a few who enlist its help to prevail over others. I only take his analysis far enough to come to the conclusion that government should not exist so that it will not be abused.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
I could sympathize with Baker on that point. There will be government, it has a purpose. The conservative fights to keep any power seeking people from their goal, be it corporate, or government. The simple fact is that in order for a Corporate fatcat to attain that power, they would need to go through a powerful overreaching government. The free market doesn't allow for it alone. So restricting government is really just plugging the outlet for intrusive power, from anybody.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "The current issue is whether we will again grant special treatment to the financial industry by allowing them to skirt the legal procedures required for foreclosures. In the land of endless affirmative action for the rich, the smart money is on the banks. After all, huge multinational banks can't be expected to read all the fine-print that binds the rest of us." Dean Baker exposing how Government Intervention enriching bankers to the detriment of tax-payers.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical: ""As long as Dean Baker does not favour government intervention into the market, he is not a Keynesian."
But then again, what's in a name? He does support intrusion, read his articles for the Guardian."
I think you deserve to be called the Stupidest Creature in the Universe. Dean Baker doesn't. He exposes how government intervention benefits Business at the cost of tax-payers.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: In "The US economy is not yet on the road to recovery," Baker wrote: "Getting the economy growing at a more rapid pace will require another round of stimulus from the government." This comment is HIGHLY DESCRIPTIVE. He wasn't prescribing government intrusion into the market at all.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Cont.
Baker merely demonstrated that, because too much government intervention into the market had caused disaster, now the same amount of government intervention is required, thus making the market dependent on government, where as the market should not be so. It's just like government beating the market to pulp and now returning as a healer.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "So, consensus is built by being argued into foregoing your ideals. Got it. Sounds great, can't wait to join and live exactly how the community wants."
The Capitalist Society is merely a Big "community." You must live accordingly with the norms of the Capitalist "community," e.g. don't trespass others' property. And yet you call this not "liv[ing] exactly how the community (read: Capitalist Society) wants."
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi "The Capitalist Society is merely a Big "community." You must live accordingly with the norms of the Capitalist "community,"
And yet, smack in the middle of the capitalist nation, are communes where you can go live in a communist Utopia. It's not that you can't do what you want, it's just that your going to face the consequences of your choices. The rest of the people are not beholden to guaranteeing you success in your chosen path.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Well, if I can live in a commune, I will still try to convince my peers not to violate the property of self-employed people and capitalist bosses elsewhere. I am pretty much of an isolationist. If workers in any capitalist enterprise do not want to revolt against their bosses, then fine. Whether they will revolt or not is not my business.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Well I guess I would have to put myself in that camp. I wouldn't include the anarchy part. There are communally agreed to laws that protect me to an extent. I wouldn't want total Anarchy, as i have always defined it. But that's just me. I don't see anything wrong with a person choosing, or having the option of choosing to be a wroker for a boss. It's a simpler life than being self efficient. I don't look down on them, or assume its because they can't be the boss.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "It's a simpler life than being self efficient." That's why I think communal living will be much harder because it requires too many responsibilities concerning how to use the means of production.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: However, if any capitalist bosses forbid me to preach to their workers about co-ops, then they had violated my freedom of speech. I only preach, the choice to revolt or not is theirs, not mine.
Likewise, you can come to any commune and preach to them that it should be converted into a Capitalist Enterprise. If they forbid to to preach about Capitalism, they will violate your freedom of speech. The choice to convert their commune into a Capitalist Enterprise is theirs also.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "It's not that you can't do what you want, it's just that your going to face the consequences of your choices. The rest of the people are not beholden to guaranteeing you success in your chosen path."
This is the Individualist Anarchist position also. They preach against both Capitalist Enterprise with Bosses and Workers and even Communes. They want all to be self-employed.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
You seem to, at least, respect the idea of being able to decide what a
person does for themselves. But, you seem to have disdain for the
natural result of being free to make those choices:
A stratified outcome. Free people make different choices, thus experience different consequences. You can't have one without the other. That's not an unintended consequence, or a necessary evil. It's the best part about it.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical:
I think I could label you the most stupid creature ever born on the face of the Earth. When I mean servile, I mean those who accept every order from their bosses WITHOUT ARGUING BACK FOR FEAR THAT THEY WILL BE FIRED SHOULD THEY QUESTION THEIR BOSSES' AUTHORITY.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: And moreover, for SERVILE, I also mean THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD TO HAVE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION BUT DO NOT WANT TO WORK FOR THEMSELVES BUT RATHER SUBMIT TO A BOSS.
If your workers argue with you demanding more payment, they are NOT servile towards you. Likewise, in a Commune or Co-Op, when members argue with each other for the sake of their self-interests, they are also in no wise servile towards each other.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
"Communism has never come to power in a country that was not disrupted by war or corruption, or both"
-JFK
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff"
-Frank Zappa
"Marxism is essentially a product of the bourgeois mind."
Joseph A. Schumpeter
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government."
Milton Friedman
See how little quotes matter to the conversation.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: I should also say that even Individualist Anarchists, who prefer self-employment (they vehemently opposed capitalist wage-labour) also acknowledge that workers' co-ops and communes which are built ON A STRICTLY VOLUNTARY BASIS are legitimate from the stand-point of Individualist Anarchism.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "Owning the means of Production is an EXPENSE that my workers enjoy not having to make."
It is BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION (many libertarians had exposed that this crisis result from too much government intervention) IN FAVOUR OF BOSSES LIKE YOU that they cannot afford the means of production to quit your fold. that's why i said after reading Baker's book they will revolt.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Government intervention doesn't help me. Government intervention is usually to either A) surpress my freedom and thus restrict what I have to give employees, generally to buy votes from hippie numbskulls,
Or B) a mandate menat to help one of my competitors by restricting me. Like regulations only big companies can afford to add to their product (I'm a small business so far)
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "There are three basic ways in which the government provides subsidies to small businesses: favorable tax treatment, below market rate loans, and exemptions from labor and safety standards that apply to other businesses."
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "But more important than the specific policies designed for small businesses is the recognition that the free market is not generally friendly to small businesses — the vast majority of small business owners are heavily dependent on the special treatment they get from the nanny state. Most small businesses are constantly struggling and usually only survive a short time. But without special treatment on taxes, loans, and regulations, even fewer would survive"
DonKhoi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonKhoi "But without special treatment on taxes, loans, and regulations, even fewer would survive"
Assuming they wanted to pay taxes, the responsibility of a loan, or regulations to begin with. Which they don't.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Baker concluded: "While small business owners across the country like to envision themselves as tough individualists, the reality is that they are actually among the prime beneficiaries of the conservative nanny state."
You can read the whole Chapter Seven of Baker's "Conservative Nanny State" online to see how you are treated favourably by government even without your knowledge.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Don't try to fool yourself. Government help all capitalists, great or small, so long as they can keep proletarians in check. That's why I become an Anarchist.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Baker is a noted "progressive" writer for liberal publications and regularly contributes to NPR. You'll excuse me if I don't revere his biased opinion. For starters he makes the false assumption that Big business owners who have used the capitalist system, are steadfast adhearents to conservatism. The true conservative capitalist understands that gaurantees, even the ones they may benefit from, restrict their individual will.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: What's in the name? Baker is NOT a statist liberal who favor government intervention into the market, whether it helps Big or Small Business Owners or even the Poor.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "regularly contributes to NPR." Roderick Tracy Long is a noted Left-Libertarian Free Marketeer who contributed regular to right-wing websites such as Mises Institute or Reason Magazine. Does it say anything about his true Political Affiliation?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Dean baker describes himself as a "Progressive." It's not like he's pretending to be something else.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: What's in the name? Or even what somebody prefers to call themself?
As long as Dean Baker does not favour government intervention into the market, he is not a Keynesian.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Don't try to Poison the Well. That Dean Baker is a progressive does not make everything he writes wrong.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
No, but it does mean he isn't unbiased.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
Comment removed
DonKhoi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical When you are dictator over your property ONLY YOU HAVE A SAY (NOT SOMEBODY WHO DO NOT OWN YOUR PROPERTY) ON HOW TO USE AND ABUSE IT.
All members in a Commune and Workers' Co-Op are DICTATORS OVER THEIR OWN COMMON PROPERTY. NO ONE FROM OUTSIDE CAN TELL THEM HOW THEY SHOULD USE IT, ONLY MEMBERS WITHIN THE COMMUNE OR CO-OP CAN DECIDE HOW TO USE IT.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical:
When you are dictator over your property YOU HAVE A SAY ON HOW TO USE AND ABUSE IT.
All members in a Commune and Workers' Co-Op are DICTATORS OVER THEIR OWN COMMON PROPERTY. NO ONE FROM OUTSIDE CAN TELL THEM HOW THEY SHOULD USE IT, ONLY MEMBERS WITHIN THE COMMUNE OR CO-OP CAN DECIDE HOW TO USE IT.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical: By the way, if you say you are a Conservative, I'm sure as Hell that Old Rightist Isolationists like Murray Rothbard will keep a distance from you.
"Especially if you got from some academic who couldn't face having to compete so became a teacher when he ran out of classes to take."
Are you try to Poison the Well?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical: By the way, if you say you are a Conservative, I'm sure as Hell that Old Rightist Isolationists like Murray Rothbard will keep a distance from you.
"Especially if you got from some academic who couldn't face having to compete so became a teacher when he ran out of classes to take."
Are you trying to Poison the Well?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical:
""I have family journals from men who lived it."
Freed Negro slaves, as Spooner himself observed (Natural Law) and Rothbard later echoed (Ethics of Liberty), were left without any lands or tools to fend for themselves, they felt obliged to work either for Northern Capitalists or even their former slave-masters who now became capitalist employers.
If the journals truly wrote about that, I sympathize with your ancestors (but not you).
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
I don't need or desire, or deserve your sympathy. Slavery was over a hundred years ago and I got civil rights before I was born. My fate is up to me now.
As for the slaves, they got the same nothing the earlier settlers of this land had to work with. Many of them went North and got jobs doing what they had experience doing, and became land owners themselves. Not sure what you really expected them to get. At best they were owed a trip home, but they were allowed to stay.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Chattel slaves in Brazil can literally purchased their liberty to become self-employed, capitalists, or even... slave-owners in their turn. Will that justify slavery?
By analogy, wage-workers can become self-employed or capitalists bosses in the future, will that justify Capitalist Wage-Labour?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Can't talk all day today, there's apparently a shooting happening at a college campus near my business in Austin Tx. Probably some leftist nut pissed about having to take responsibility for himself, instead of spreading it around. Peace out for now.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
"Not in your communes you don't."
ARE YOU STUPID?
This is a hypothetical scenario THE ONLY THREE CHARACTERS (no place for your lawyer) IN WHICH ARE I, an industrial miner with modern weapons which crave for diamonds under a farm owned by you, a primitive farmer. That's why if consensus cannot be reached and conflict occurs, I will win.
Nevertheless, Karl Hess, the bystander, would find my actions objectionable and accused me of violating your property rights.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Sure, let's go with your artifical scenario. You're the better armed industrialist, I'm the lowly farmer and there's no law. Yes, you will take me out and get my land. Thus, you have lived by the laws of nature, which is what you say you want to do. The point is, If I chose to live in that world, can I argue about it? Nope.
But tell me, what's the difference between your industrialist in the magical land of no laws, and the Communist government that's above them anyway?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "The point is, If I chose to live in that world, can I argue about it? Nope."
So you think that will justify European conquests of Native populaces (many of whom are peaceful)?
And you also forgot Karl Hess, who was also present as a bystander. He would likely say that my aggression on your property is never justified.
From a bystander's viewpoint, likewise, European conquest is never justified.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
Yeah, somehow Cameron forgot that Native American's were guilty of some of the most brutal warfare recorded in history. Scalping? Who the hell else thought of that?
We didn't do anything to the indians they weren't doing to each other already. The most common thing tribes asked for in exchange for showing us the ropes in the new world: Help them wipe out the next tribe over!
Fuck the indians
Fuck The overgrown smurfs
Fuck anybody who thinks I should feel bad about being American.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Native Americans scalped Europeans in retaliation
By the way Europeans were scalping people before they discovered America
Scalping also happened in Central Asia even earlier than that
You shouldn't feel bad for being an American, but you should feel bad about being a douche bag
shawnyadeadhomie 1 year ago
@shawnyadeadhomie
Nah, I'll just go fill a native American whore's mouth with my feces. Practice for the next time I have an extra $10.00 to spend on your mom.
They lost their land because God hates them. Their centuries of raping and plundering each other left them devided, so they couldn't stand against the Europeans. Fuck em' Should have let them go extinct.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical Oh wow you've totally convinced me that you're not a douchebag. . .
shawnyadeadhomie 1 year ago
@shawnyadeadhomie
Convincing you was never the goal. Nobody cares what you think.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical what was the goal?
you didn't do anything but spout ignorant hate without anything to back it up
shawnyadeadhomie 1 year ago
@shawnyadeadhomie
I just like getting under the skin of self-righteous intellectual bilge-spewers. It's just a hobby of mine.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Black peoples also had been massacring each other so much that they were divided and could not stand the might of Arab slave-raiders and Europeans colonists. So will that justify slavery, imperialism, KKK's lynching, and many other kinds of hate-crimes?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Of course not. The point is, American people today don't have anything to justify. People in the past did horrible things to each other. I don't owe anybody anything because of it, because somewhere in their history, is somebody doing horrible things to somebody else too.
Grow up, get over it, and focus you're energy on what's ahead.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Then why do you want to shit the mouth of a Native American woman just because her ancestors did some bad things? And why then you wish for their extinction because their ancestors had done bad things also?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
I thought all you hippies jerked off to Darwin theory. Don't we owe it to the future of our species to remove inferiors from the gene pool?
I don't want to fill her mouth with shit because of her ancestors, but to express how much I care about her people's culture. Call it performance art.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Natural Selection has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. If an organism can adapt to the environment it will survive. Supposed that in the future the Sun emit more radiation, the fairer-skinned people, having less melanie and thus being more prone to skin cancer, will die off; however civilized they are compared to their darker-skinned fellows.
You have not a clue about how natural selection works. Even if you be right, you commit naturalistic fallacy.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Btw, how are Negroids and Mongoloids inferior to Caucasoids?
I should also tell you that Guilt or Honor by Association is fallacious. That some Europeans did something great in the past does not entail that their descendants must be great.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Never said they were. Liberals. Always focused on race and how people look.
If that were the case, I would be saying I am inferior to caucasoids, numbnuts, try and keep up.
It's culture, and inferior ones need to die out. Leftist liberalism and Euro style socialism have had their neck on the chopping block for a century. Time to pull the lever.
And it's Melanin, and under evolution theory the white people will adapt like everyone else to solar changes.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: That's merely a typographical error.
Your example is Lamarckian, not Darwinian. White People cannot increase their amount of melanin to adapt to a sudden increase of solar radiation in my hypothetical future. They will inevitably die out of skin cancer unless some of their children happen to have a beneficial mutation such as having more melanin, and thus having a darker skin-tone, to cope. with more intense radiation.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Darwin was not the birth of evolution theory. People with high levels of Melanin evolved that trait to adapt to their environment, why wouldn't white people continue to evolve if the circumstances changed? Logically, they would cease to be "White" at that point, but unless the solar change is some hollywood dramatic instantaneous shift, the people will adapt. The same way there were no white bears until they migrated into the arctic.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Did Theropods go extinct, and only their descendants, birds, remain today?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Right, the ones that turned into birds survived, and the human race, all races, will turn into something else if the environment dictates it. That's how the evolution theory works.
Don't forget the ancinet theropods died out because of a sudden catastrophic event, not a global environment shift over thousands of years. They had survived those numerous times before their extinction.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: They did NOT "turn into" birds. Birds are their descendants, evolutionary biologists will laugh at your wordings.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
So, where's the anarchy? How do you keep things equally ditributed without someone to regulate it, in an environment where members are naturally stratified in their abilities, needs, production, and desires? These kinds of ideas always seem to sound nice on paper, but fall flat when you insert human nature. Is there some historical success of this idea you can point to? It doesn't sound like a new idea soo far.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Distribution according to needs is not equal distribution. Egalitarianism has nothing to do with distribution, but that every individual with optimal reasoning capacities (even child prodigies and experienced old people) will ALL HAVE A SAY in the decision-making process on how to use the means of production to serve the needs of all.
Btw, in the FEC neither rulers nor regulators exist.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
As for Avatar, does anybody notice that at the beginning the humans were trying to negotiate for resources, and the mercenaries only had to be called in for protection from radicals?
Also, what is this mineral for? Does it cure cancer or something? Maybe it fulfills a greater need for humans than just dirt the N'avi walk on! By your reasoning, it should be taken from them according to who needs it, right?
Under it all though, it's just anti american, environmentalist horseshit.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: If the Na'vi do not agree to move, then the negotiation fails and humans have no right to violate the Na'vi's private property, their planet. Don't get me wrong, I watched the movie myself and saw that the Na'vi had conceded by allowing human to built some research facilities. They only refused to concede any further.
An analogy: suppose you are a farmer who happen to live upon a diamond mine, and I am a greedy miner who want those valuable ores. What if I come with a gun?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi If you're a "greedy miner" who wants what's under my farm, bring your checkbook, and we will make a deal.
What happens in your FEC when someone has a need for something another doesn't want to give up? What happnes when joe hippy realizes his hour spent building a house is worth more than your hour dread-locking hair? Just because it hasn't failed yet, doesn't make it a success. This isn't new, when did it work before?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: What if you refuse to move out, and I come with weapons to force you to leave?
"Just because it hasn't failed yet, doesn't make it a success." Could I equally say that because Capitalism hasn't failed yet does not make it a success? Moreover, you seem to be a soothsayer to see their eventual failure.
By means of consensus also.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi " What if you refuse to move out, and I come with weapons to force you to leave?"
We have consensus laws in our capitalist society that prevent that, and provide a better outlet. We have property rights, because we believe in having PROPERTY. Capitalsim created the only surviving economic superpower on the planet, in less than 200 years, plus is the support system for your little cultural experiments out in the woods. Still looking for capitalist educated horticulturists?
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Then why violate the Na'vi's property, as David Boaz called it? By analogy, why violate Australian Aborigines, Native Americans' property?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi "Then why violate the Na'vi's property, as David Boaz called it?"
Need. The same reason the tall blue hypocrits from the movie shoot an animal and eat it. Did the animal agree to die? No, but they thanked it anyway.
Also, I have never heard of this Boaz, and I'm sure he hasn't actually talked to any conservatives about the film. Their problem isn't the fighting. It's the pagan tree worshipping Enviro garbage that makes them gag.
Watch the "How it should have ended' for this movie.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: Your ignorance is outstanding. David Boaz is the FOUNDER OF THE RIGHTIST CATO INSTITUTE.
"Need." So you basically say that because Earthlings and Na'vi are two different species, so they can violate each other's property, just like lions and zebra? This David Boaz would disapprove.
What was so wrong with Nature worshipping? I consider Christianity to be the stupidest religion on Earth?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Yeah, see conservatives like to think for ourselves and do our own research. We don't get our ideas from thinktanks and institutes, like Center for American progress and organizing for America, who are setting the Washington agenda right now.
"What was so wrong with Nature worshipping?"
Because it's predicated on feeling bad about, or flat denying our rightful place dominating this planet. Its really about halting advancement, so that we remain weak and dependent on gov't.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "flat denying our rightful place dominating this planet."
Petitio Principii. That human can build structure, make transportation means does not imly that they have the dominance over other forces of nature.
And what is so wrong about living harmonically with nature?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi "And what is so wrong about living harmonically with nature?"
Who says we're not? Animals kill each other all the time. There isn't a single thing on this planet we use that wasn't provided by nature. Oil? Natural. Penicillin? Natural. Silicon? Natural. The Atom? Natural
Really, what's the difference between that, and artifically ending the life of some animal or plant?
Evolution gave you a brain, and you're actually refusing to use it.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
Comment removed
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: "Evolution gave you a brain, and you're actually refusing to use it."
It was you who refused to use it. According to your logic: because the Na'vi worshiped Nature instead of conquering it like Earthlings, they do not deserve property rights.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
I'm not the one advocating joining a commune with no property rights, you are.
In real life, It's the capitalist society of laws based on INDIVIDUAL ownership of property and production that PROTECTS you from people like the Mercs in that work of fiction.
Make sure not to express any domination over nature out there in the woods, aerating land for crops with your evil "hoe" technology raping the land.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
@pimpdalyrical: First, ONE INDIVIDUAL OR COMMUNE'S property rights must not be violate by other individual or commune. Communal Ownership may be formed on a Strictly Voluntary Basis with somebody one likes and not other one dislikes.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi
Sure it is. Til somebody you really need decides to leave. Then what? You gonna just do without a doctor? Or you gonna offer him or her what they're really worth?
What are you gonna do when the next commune over starts using your water source as a sewer?
You building your little Utopia in the US? Better give it back to the indians. Wouldn't want you feeling bad about your little venture.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pimpdalyrical: "Or you gonna offer him or her what they're really worth?"
One Big Assumption, as if no doctors would be willing to treat patients without absurdly high payment.
"What are you gonna do when the next commune over starts using your water source as a sewer?"
They had VIOLATE OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS. I don't think you are that stupid.
DonKhoi 1 year ago