A purely capitalist society would self destruct within 5 minutes...hmmmm...what a ridiculous idea...capitalism is obviously an ideal but in its pure form unworkable...just as the atmosphere contains oxygen which supports life, but an atmosphere of 100% oxygen would prohibit the natural cycle of life as we know it. When one speaks of "capitalist" societies one is obviously referring to an environment where capitalist ideologies are given a reasonable amount of working space.
As a student about to graduate with an engineering degree, what really stood out to me was the comment about self-managing enterprises. Sounds like it might be a great idea to start one up. Perhaps even one to do with high-speed rail. :)
@trifulquita15 Well i know your not trolling for asking a question like that the answer is that many people that are gay/bi are really... well people are very anti and yelling things and do other nasty things at them just for being it... in an anarchist society you can love anyone despite the race, gender... everyone is as much worth, despite your race, where you are born, hair colour, gender.. its not like that now.. look in the us how are gays looked on and mexicans? and so on..
@smaug95swe i disagree, in an anarchist society people will be free to discriminate whoever they want. Even in the current society we can't force racists to be more tolerant. In an anarchist society we will see the ugly side of freedom
@trifulquita15 how much have you read on anarcism etc? an anarchist societys aim is to have no sexism, no racism and so on read some god damn facts i just found an easy video for you /watch?v=aAXcy2NoGNk&feature=plcp&context=C38fcddfUDOEgsToPDskI707KztA4fz7r3Ko4aqU4g
@smaug95swe no no no, u are confused. You think ALL people will be anarchists if we have an anarchist society. If we have an anarchist society many people will accept to live under anarchism, but they will never think like you. Unless you force these people to be anarchist
@trifulquita15 That i do know, you cant really decide if someone is still gonna be against homosexuallity but look at it this way... yelling and harassing someone for being gay is wrong for the reason that being gay is freedom and if you think gayness is wrong you are against freedom, in no society everyone can be happy... but it can overall be better for each and every person in a anarchist society sorry for my bad eng... i hope you understand...
@4teepee It's in the nature of any competition that each player wishes to eliminate his competitors, this is what it is to win. The point is that once you start playing badly again, your competition enters back into the race. Any monopoly which sustains itself only by offering better and cheaper products deserves to exist, which obviously benefits consumers, and it is the only way to win in a free market. State police -> individual property rights -> trade -> mutual prosperity.
If pure competition really existed within industries, it would be hard to generate profits, and companies would be failing all the time, leading to a lot of squandered resources. What really happens is that industries consolidate, and competition is thereby limited.
@4teepee Competition is generated by new minds entering the market upon notice of opportunity, opportunity created by anyone whose products' quallity and prices are less than they could be.
@eggory There is a reason why consolidation occurs. It is not the result of a fluke. There are barriers to entry and more money to be made, even when there is a new entrant, by consolidation and monopoly or oligopoly pricing.
@4teepee If, every time a new business of any size came up and started underselling the monopoly in its own market, that monopoly simply bought them out to sustain market control, then everyone would want to invest in that market simply for the guarantee of immediate return, of getting bought out, and the monopoly company would very soon be over-capitalized, in a way that would not be remotely sustainable. Eventually they would need to capitulate and lower prices to compete.
@jozzo6 Monopolies can happen without state intervention in the economy, but then they would have to earn their monopoly instead of just "earning" the special privileges mandated by the state. But you are obviously an anarchist, which is a bit silly. There are a few institutional rules lacking which a society could not have capitalism. All you can do is argue that they would exist too in anarchy, but that they would not be called laws. By their very nature, that is what they would be.
@eggory Te only way to attain monopoly w/out State interference is to be the most efficient producer with the most competitive price. If you are able to price with large margins and gov't keeps markets free and open it will be impossible to maintain a monopoly. Show me where such a monopoly exists, where gov't ensures free and open markets.
@4teepee What r u talking about? Why do u think 80% of new businesses fail within 5 yrs? What really happens is that large businesses, which love regulations, get cozy w/gov't regulators to keep competition out.
@vince33x You just proved my point. Of course, most of the businesses that fail are not capital intensive. If they were, huge amounts of resources would be going down the drain.
@4teepee I didn't make a qualification one way or the other about capital intensive vs. less cap intensive. Only that most biz fail within 5 yrs. of start-up. Many existing businesses try to use gov't to protect themselves from competition, when gov't's ought to work to keep markets free and open and too often do not. It is Gov't that is usually the enemy of competition.
@vince33x Monopoly and oligopoly are characteristic of really existing capitalism and capitalists. Don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, any kind of genuine capitalist system would soon collapse. At a basic level, for example, the limited liability corporation is a creation of government. Then, there is taxpayer financed infrastructure, eminent domain laws, and on and on.
@4teepee What real world example does Chomsky ever refer to when he says: "any kind of genuine capitalist system would soon collapse."? He makes this assertion w/out referring to any example. What is he talking about? The corporation is a product of gov't and its history goes back at least as far as the British East India Co. (chartered in 1601).
That's one part of the equation. The other part is that businesses that have been around a lot longer can often already offer better, cheaper services & products because of just that. They've had years and years to 'perfect' their products and market strategies. New businesses are more dependant on loans & pay relatively more interest.
Of course, political influence and one-sided regulation is also a big part of the deal, especially in the US.
@StrangeYoghurt The #1 reason new businesses enter a market is when margins are high. This is why it's so important for gov't to maintain free & open markets. If gov't serves to protect existing
Everytime Chomsky says 'we don't have capitalism, we have state capitalism' I'm like 'damn not again'. Capitalism is a direct outgrow of feudalism, and always rested on legal privilege given by the state (capitalist private property, patents, monopoly of credit, land monopoly, decreasing of labor's value through regulations, taxation, tarrifs). There's no other capitalism than state capitalism. Laissez-Faire capitalism doesn't exist outside of Ayn Rand's books.
@GompCelticPL For most of the 19th Century, both the USA and GB were as close as any nation has been to Laissez-Faire, and the std. of living in both nations improved rapidly. What about trademarks and copyrights? Should they also b abandoned? Of the 4 elements of production (Management, Capital, Resource and Labor) labor is the LEAST VALUABLE, because whenever it can b replace by Capital, it makes sense to do so. Capitalism is man's escape from feudalism, serfdom and slavery.
@vince33x Lol, don't be silly. During the era you love serfs were deprived of their land and their resources to make them go to the cities and work as wage slaves. It's not freedom. Also if labor is the least valuable then you could spare us your propaganda and try to write comments without putting any labor into it...
@GompCelticPL Their land and their resources are what enabled them to the glorious life of subsistance agriculture. They chose to move to the cities because amenities which had never been produced before as well as amenities that for the first time were affordably mass-producable were available to those willing to participate in their production, which naturally necessitated living near the factory just as they had previously lived ON the farms. Geeze!
@eggory Their land and their resources are artificial privilege propped by the state, which artificially holds the worker back from the means of production, and entering into the market themselves thus forcing them into wage slavery. Geeze, getting sick of this capitalist bullshit.
@GompCelticPL State capitalism is very different to true capitalism...in actual fact it completely undermines liberty and progress. Don't get sucked into thinking that socialism is any better.
@jozzo6 True capitalism? You mean a pipe dream made up by Ayn Rand or Mises. Yeah, it's different. There has never been nor will be any other capitalism than state capitalism, the very term capitalism was created (by Thomas Hodgskin I believe, or Marx I'm not sure) to describe the system of legal privileges on the part of capital. Capitalism can't survive without a state.
@GompCelticPL I told u why it was the least important element (I didn't say 'valuable' u did - is that ur idea of a rhetorical device?) of production. Why? Because whenever u can substitute Capital for Labor, it's usually done. I've already said this. And, it's not propaganda, manufacturing businesses do this all the time, so it's a real world example.
@GompCelticPL Serfs didn't own land, they worked the land owned by the Lord of the Manor so to speak. Going back in time to discover the origins of how the land was acquired, I suspect one would find it was acquired by tribal leaders who had the most loyal and best fighters. But I'm only guessing.
Ignore the troll, his hobby is trolling every single libertarian or anarchist video he can find on YouTube.
"Can't you see how superior my ideas are, based on biased junk like blog entries and links to videos made by clueless lefties? Everything you say is wrong because you're indoctrinated droolers cult members, and also stupid doo-doo-heads! That's not an ad hominem attack of your arguments because I say so! There's no gun in the room! Marxism is great! You can't prove I've ever been wrong!"
@theredscourge Really? Evidence? Trolling? Evidence? I actually make comments related to the topics on every thread I go to. You like talking about me, only, it would appear. This makes you the troll (See 'projection' in a psych. dictionary) I've not once said a word about my ideas being superior, not have I left a single piece of junk, nor has there been any evidence provided which would support this claim. You're shooting in the dark and not hitting anything, are you? And, there hasn't been a
@theredscourge ...single example of ad hominem attacks. In fact, I already demonstrated with evidence that this was nonsense. You have done nothing to counter. I haven't mentioned Marx once, nor have you shown that I have. But we ALL know that if you're not a right-wing drooler, you're a "Marxist", as if you know anything about Marx. But you DID get the last sentence correct. You have no once demonstrated that I have been wrong. Still waiting. You're funny though. Don't stop. Talk more about me!
@quepasoconelmundo27 You tube isn't press and the vast majority of people do not get their news from youtube. He means per capita and given the means of communication at the time, MINUS all the nonsense crap as one finds even in the MSM today. It's embarrassing how pathetic news is today as compared to the time he referred when folks were much more literate and would have only held scorn for anything resembling something like FOX News. That you would consider this news supports his comments.
@quepasoconelmundo27 You tube isn't press and the vast majority of people do not get their news from youtube. He means per capita and given the means of communication at the time, MINUS all the nonsense crap as one finds even in the MSM today. It's embarrassing how pathetic news is today as compared to the time he referred when folks were much more literate and would have only held scorn for anything resembling something like FOX News. That you would consider this news supports his comments.
kropotkinbeard1 please stop embarrasing yourself, its pathetic how you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over without actually making an argument.
@LibertyRealm I have dome nothing BUT make arguments. You just keep whining and not making arguments yourself, as you have done here yet again, and that I've pointed out, again. My evidence supplied.
@LibertyRealm "Individual rights and property". OooooOOoooo...Never head that before. You have no rights or property other than what society decides you have. Grow up.
@vince33x Uhhh...No, I'm saying that an alien brought them down to us from deep space. No, wait, I'm saying that they just fell from our butts. No, wait, I'm saying that there are no such things as rights at all. And most definitely no such thing as "natural rights", unless by "natural" we mean that people just create them and decide what hey are. People create rights. Outside this, there is no such thing.
"Haven't said a single word about "enforcing" anything, nor does it apply to anything I've said."
"And if anyone doesn't wish to put back into the system from which they've taken, you know, the thieves then we can decide as a free society what should happen to the criminals."
"These are all feasible alternatives" Really, and how would Chomsky effect these changes. "decisions could be made differently..." Why doesn't he say what he means? He says he's an Libertarian Socialist. What twaddle! He's just a run-of-the-mill Socialist and Socialism - the idea - has been the greatest contributor to mass murder in man's history.
What capitalist system is he talking about that "self-destructed in 5 minutes? This guy is a moron, who happens to be a good linguist...an idiot-savant if you will, with emphasis on the 'idiot' part!
Believe what you want, but capitalism is about profit and LOSSES. If corporations get money from the goverment to cover their losses it distorts the whole system. And this has nothing to do with regulation,rule of law or the chain of command in institutions. Either you embrace this capitalist system or u give up on it completely. I mean even goverment ownership of the means of production (like a hospital) makes more sense than goverment helping corporations (current system).
The role of the State with Capitalism is the Rule of Law and the equal treatment of ALL men under the Rule of Law and the enforcement of property rights next to sound monetary policies. Without these requirements Capitalism cannot work. See the explicit details in the works of Friedrich Hayek that are never mentioned by the Chomky's of our time.
@DutchsMaria Actually hayeks work was about how knowledge is decentralized and the state, being removed from the sphere of voluntary exchanges, has no way of discerning this information. Therefore whenever the state intervenes in the economy, it disrupts pricing signals and economic coordination, leading to depressions and recessions when investments are shown to be unsustainable.
But we are not talking about the State intervening in the economy but instead upholding the requirements needed in order for Free Markets to work , like upholding the Rule of Law ( not happening today with our Two Tier Justice system) and the role of Sound Monetary policies or Sound Money. Without these requirements in place , free markets cannot work by the admittance of those in history that have advocated on free markets.
@DutchsMaria Your first problem is believing that monopolizing the court system and administering monetary policy, are not themselves interventions into the economy. The second is that the state does not create money. They can enforce legal tender laws, but it is only individual subjective judgements that determine what people value. So no, not only does the free market not need the state, but the very interventions you claim are crucial to its survival are its biggest hinderances.
@ekeyra Maybe time to read the Constitution? The Government as it should exist today has duties. Coining money is one and providing the Judicial branch is two! The Congress has the power to coin money but they have passed the Federal Reserve act in 1913 and given it to a private entity so Congress could spend without the taxpayer knowing it is being taxed ( our empire comes to mind)
@DutchsMaria Read lysander spooner instead and you'd know the constitution is binding to noone other than those who signed it. It cannot be enforced on anyone else because noone else can be said to have voluntarily bound themselves to it. There is no reason to give any one institution or organization a monopoly on coining money or judicial services. However the real problem is that whether or not they are constitutional has no bearing on whether or not they are in fact market interventions.
@ekeyra Your suggestion is? I mean lets face it, mankind is deeply flawed and corrupt. Its in our nature. What you are bascially saying is , no format in any form can solve the problems or execute oversight and demand accountability.
"The only significant cases of overstocking found by the leading modern expert on the English commons involved wealthy landowners who deliberately put too many animals onto the pasture in order to weaken their much poorer neighbors' position in disputes over the enclosure (privatization) of common lands (Neeson 1993: 156)."
Is it really necessary that I have to spoon-feed you like this? I know you're not going to do the work on your own, or even know where to look. You can just thank me.
@kropotkinbeard1 1. Wall of text. Not only does it show that you cannot summarize your ideas, three quarters of your obscenely long rant was nothing but rhetorical questions that you provide your own answers for.
2. Taxes collected with violence or at the very least the implied threat of violence is in no way coercion, yet wage labor, which you are free to accept, refuse, or negotiate, is coercion? For being a fan of a linguist its stunning that your grasp of this concept is so lacking.
@ekeyra 1. Irrelavant. You either have an argument or you don't. I don't need a lecture on style. Not interested. Also, not evidence of "ranting", not that this is a bad thing.
2. Taxes aren't collected with violence, nor should they be as anyone civil should happily pay them. Who on earth would not wish to contribute to their own society? Ahhh..."coercion"! Finally! Can really be a fake libertarian with saying it at least once a day. And, freedom to choose your master is itself coercion.
@kropotkinbeard1 "Taxes aren't collected with violence, nor should they be as anyone civil should happily pay them. Who on earth would not wish to contribute to their own society?"
Off the top of my head, ... anyone living in germany say late 30s early 40s?
@ekeyra So, you're saying that the Germans didn't want to pay taxes at this time, but had to anyway? Well, at least you're supporting the my position that it wasn't a democracy. Secondly, they've obviously grown up as an article which just came out a couple of months ago already had 44 signatories of wealthy Germans saying they believed they should pay more taxes. Why can't those in the U.S. be so honest and civilized? A "slippery slope"? Haha Anyway, here's some more text from the real world .
@ekeyra ..to choke on: "The petition has 44 signatories so far, and will be presented to newly re-elected Chancellor Angela Merkel. The group say the financial crisis is leading to an increase in unemployment, poverty and social inequality. Simply donating money to deal with the problems is not enough, they want a change in the whole approach. "The path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice," they say in the petition. Those who had...
@ekeyra .... "made a fortune through inheritance, hard work, hard-working, successful entrepreneurship, or investment" should contribute by paying more to alleviate the crisis."
But, I mean, what would they know? They're only the wealthy, like, say Buffett. What would he know about paying taxes, other than admitting hoe doesn't pay enough. And, please spare me the "Well he can always pay more of he wants to" nonsense. Not interested. Remember? The real world is better.
@ekeyra Tax collection is pure FORCE. Anyone believing otherwise is an imbecile. If u refuse to pay ur property tax, the county will place a lien on ur property. If u still refuse to pay, the sheriff will evict u. If u resist this eviction, the Sheriff will use all the force necessary to evict u - including killing u. This happens all the time but our Left-Wing, Jew-dominated media refuse to report these occurrences.
@vince33x Taxation has nothing to do with "force" of any kind in a free society, or free people, making free decisions, in a free and democratic fashion. Therefore, IF taxes are, in fact, being forced from people, it demonstrates that it is either not a democracy, as a democracy would allow no such thing, or it is a democracy being abused. In a democracy of free people, making choices about how they wish their money to be spent, would welcome such contributions. Tax would be viewed positively.
@kropotkinbeard1 If ur going to be idiotic, well then it's pointless. But everything government does is through FORCE or the threat of FORCE. The problem w/people like u is that u view democracy as simply mob rule where one group of people, if the can muster the votes, has the right to steal from another group of people. U must also think taxes are 'voluntary.' Of course, if you believe that u r a naive nitwit.
@vince33x No evidence of my being idiotic. Just an assertion with no evidence provided, which is idiotic itself. Sorry, but I'm quite familiar with the religion of government=force nonsense. It can demand force. Nothing inherent that it does so. Depends on how people have designed the society. They could design it whereby they allow it to have force, you know, as in most anti-democratic states, but there's no law of nature which says it has to be this way. Not at all. Also, you're making the
@kropotkinbeard1 U must b a gov't worker to believe such nonsense. "Government is not eloquence or reason, it is FORCE and, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." (George Washington) I'll take his words over ur nonsense any day.
@vince33x "Government worker"? A free and democratic government, chosen by free people, who freely decide how they wish for their society to be designed, would have nothing to do with "force" of anything. If it's using force, then it's not democratic and it should move back to the rational, free, logical, moral position which IS democracy. I agree that the U.S. is NOT this at present. This is precisely because it has moved away from democracy, and due to the interference by unaccountable private
@kropotkinbeard1 U continue to exhibit ignorance - especially of American history. The USA was founded as a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. The states were free to set their own standards on who was allowed to vote (in most cases, you had to own property or pay taxes). At the Federal level, the house was chosen by direct election (thus it became known as "The people's House), Senators were chosen by their state Legislatures and the President was chosen by 'electors' who were elected in each state.
@vince33x We have been moving toward 'pure democracy' (something our Founders warned against because it would lead to factionalism and mob rule - I think they're proving right): Now no state may have its own qualifications as to who may or may not vote, Senators are now chosen by direct election (17th Amendment) and with each Presidential election we hear cries for getting rid of the Electoral College. The USa has moved toward democracy NOT AWAY from it.
@vince33x Perhaps, but you have shown nothing to indicate this. And I have said almost nothing of American history, though I can if you wish. The U.S. is a representative democracy, but a rather weak one. But this isn't even relevant to anything I've been saying for the most part. Who cares how the U.S. was "founded". The states were and are ALWAYS under the the Federal government. Sorry. I know how some folks would really like for states to have all power, but, in the end, they don't. And with
@vince33x ...the way things have been going i.e.moving even further away from democracy and toward more and more power being held by unaccountable private tyrannies, you'd sure better hope that things move away from states having more power as this makes the pillage, plunder, and tyranny of private power to be much easier. I mean, the theory that having power in smaller areas sounds nice, and I'd be for it. However, with the way the society has been working, primarily since the criminal..
@vince33x ...Reagan began the tragedy 30 years ago, this would NOT be a good thing. But if you can demonstrate to me how private tyrannies, minorities by definition i.e.tyranny of the minority (the REAL world example), would not have this sort of power, then I'm open for suggestions in considering how this might work. No problem at all. After all, I'm pretty much an anti-statist, as everything I've said indicates. Actually, more of a socialist/anarchist/democrat. That being said, what you've..
@kropotkinbeard1 OK, what power does EXXON have over you? Compared to the power gov't has over you. Exxon cant arrest u. Gov't can not only arrest u, their IRS can take everything u own without due process. The ENEMY of LIBERTY is gov't that's why Jefferson said: "That government is best which governs least."
@vince33x ..written here in no way, shape, or form alters anything I've been saying. If anything it supports most of what I've asserted. Of course it was designed from the beginning by the white, propertied, wealthy minority, and has been pretty much maintained as such till today. And if the people allow it to stay this way, then that's what they do, as free people living in a free country. Personally, I'm against the tyranny of the minority, as are most people who understand reality.
@kropotkinbeard1 I guess that's why the USA created the greatest amount of wealth ever created in the history of mankind. And, I guess that's why the avg. poor person in the USA LIVES BETTER than the avg. middle class person in Europe. Simple questions even a nitwit like u should be able to answer: 1) What is wealth? 2) How is wealth created?
@kropotkinbeard1 Ur view of democracy appears absolutist. So, do u believe if a majority of the folks vote to confiscate the property of Jews, would that be OK?
@vince33x Not sure what you mean regarding absolutist, but, if I do understand correctly, then, probably, yes, I do believe this. However, again, your example of the Jews is precisely what does NOT happen with democratically-minded free people. In the REAL world, NOT the world of theory, the democratically-minded people ARE the ones fighting to make sure that the Jewish property isn't taken away. And this has ALWAYS been the case. To people with even a minimal understanding of democracy, this...
@kropotkinbeard1 A democracy absolutist basically believes in majority rule no matter what. U sound as though u r a 'democracy absolutist.' BTW, in the REAL WORLD, the majority has sacked the minority many times. What do you think happened in the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution? Mobs have been stealing and murdering for centuries. What do you think the barbarians did to Rome?
@vince33x ...isn't even a serious question. Just ask anyone who has every fought for any minorities. Ask me. I can tell you who has and hasn't fought against minorities, and who has fought to support them. Sorry, but you've been indoctrinated, as consciously planned, by the propaganda of the tyranny of the minority who have basically persuaded folks like you, who they actually despise, to unwittingly support them. Look at the tea baggers for a VERY clear example.
@vince33x ...tyrannies. But even with the paltry anti-democratic interference by the criminal folks who fight against democracy, there are still enough formal mechanisms in place to move in this direction without the use of force. It's called voting in the adult world. Nothing to do with force. And if force exists, it's because you allow it to. Get off your lazy as and change the place. Thanks, also, to democracy and the freedom it entails, you're allowed to do this. I'm sure you'd take the...
@vince33x ...words of the white minority of property owners who made it okay for only themselves to vote, etc....It's called the "tyranny of the minority". I'm not interested in this minority of the top 1%, nor any repercussions they may experience for putting themselves in this position.
@kropotkinbeard1 Jews are 1.9% of the USA's population, they control at least 22% of the USA's wealth. Do u think under democracy that it's OK for the majority to vote for the confiscation of Jewish-owned property because they have far more than their 'fair share.'
@vince33x So, you ARE saying that the power lies with the minority and therefore supporting what I've been saying. Also, when wealth is so concentrated in the hands of so few, they are NOT the minority anymore. That's as if I were to have a machine gun and 10 fellows with BB guns jumped me, and I whined about being the victim of the "mob". Sorry, but even though I'm physically outnumbered, I'm hardly outnumbered with power. So, I could care less if they're Jewish or not. This has no bearing at
@kropotkinbeard1 These are facts: Jews are 1.9% of the USA's population and they control at least 22% of the USA's wealth. In ur view, if the majority says it's unfair that Jews have that much wealth, it's OK for the majority to vote that Jews have to give up most of their wealth and give it to others. That's what ur saying, isn't it?
@vince33x ...all, as it may have with Hitler, yet another example of the tyranny of the minority at work. If the free people in a the free society decide that they think it's okay for a small percentage of people to take from society without putting back into it at whatever amount they feel is reasonable, then fine. They freely chose this. Unfortunately, due to the lack of democracy, they usually don't have such choice. Again, the problem is a lack of any meaningful democracy.
@vince33x ...typical mistake made by those who know little or nothing about democracy. Before you go any further you need to learn about what democracy, or better yet, anarchism, socialism, etc...There is no such thing as "mob rule" in a democracy. Doesn't exist. And your tired old example of the fairy tale majority taking away from the minority is nothing but a fairy tale with little relationship to reality. In the real world where I live, it has been precisely the democratic forces which have
@kropotkinbeard1 Our own President is engaging in mob-rule tactics by demonizing those who have created wealth and he has admitted that his re-election will be about taking from those who have created wealth and redistributing it to his constituencies. Alex de Tocqueville, in his book: DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, long ago noted that "democracy will only last until the politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." Progressive tax rates are a product of mob-rule.
@vince33x Hahahaha...He is supporting the tyranny of the minority to a large extent. "Those who have created wealth"? Hahahaha...As if this is supposed to mean something. They played the system and taken from the system a disproportionate amount like parasite have done throughout history, but at its most extreme right now. And you cheer the parasites? Hahaha...And you pretend to have concern about freedom? Hahaha...Not that he is at all anyway, but he shouldn't even have to take money from the
@vince33x ...parasite who took it from the system in the first place. They should happily return it as several have already done, once they grew the hell up, learned that the system had been unfairly designed to benefit a few, realized the immorality of it, and decided to respond. You're little more than a slave cheerleading for your next master. The "mob rule" fairy tale has LONG been exposed as precisely that, a fairy tale. The "tyranny of the minority" is the problem and has been so...
@vince33x ...throughout history, and in ever country. There are no examples of a tyranny of the majority by a free and democratic society. But of you have a single example I'd be happy to hear about it. Simply listening to your outdated whines which you've unwittingly internalized via tyranny of the minority propaganda is boring, though entertaining. I've already posted data dealing with this issue. Thy 'tyranny of the minority' which has always existed in the real world, and the non-existent..
@kropotkinbeard1 Tell me something Krop, which is the higher value: Individual Liberty or a democratic form of government? Which is the higher value: Economic Liberty or Political Liberty?
@vince33x The choice is nonsense. Any democratic form of government would have to include individual liberty or it would not be democratic. You really DO know nothing about the most fundamentals of democracy, do you? You've swallowed to much anti-democratic propaganda and are basically wallowing around in the the same Truman Show which Scientologists are. Without political liberty there is NO economic liberty, so that's a non-starter. Also, the black and white either or choices here remind me
@kropotkinbeard1 The choice is not nonsense. Indeed, we see it in the real world - BTW, have you ever been there? - in Singapore, it is an authoritarian state with a very free and open economy and one of the highest standards of living in the world. I prefer a free and open market economy with a constitution that protects individual liberty and prevents the majority from stealing from the rest.
@kropotkinbeard1 We have examples in the USA. A majority of the folks voted for FDR and now we are all FORCED to join the Social Security System. In a FREE SOCIETY I would have a choice as to whether or not I wished to be part of Social Security. A majority of the folks voted for LBJ and he FORCED a lot of young guys into the military to fight his was in SE Asia - example of GOVERNMENT FORCE. He also FORCED us all to join MediCare/MedicAid. In a Free Society I would have the choice to join
@vince33x or not join. But these were two Fascist Presidents who believe in the use of FORCE to achieve their ends. Same with Obama and ObamaCARE. 1st he is FORCING insurance companies into providing insurance without regard to pre-existing conditions which is driving up insurance premiums and will eventually drive Private insurers out of the marketplace leaving only the government to provide health insurance - which is what Obama wants anyway and then gov't bureaucrats will decide what
@vince33x treatments you may and may not have. For example, if you are 75 and need a total hip replacement, you will not be able to get. Then Private Clinics will sprout up and they'll be illegal and our gov't will end up arresting doctors for giving services to people willing to pay for those services. This is the Fascist world of kropotkin. And there will be revolution against tyrannical scum like you.
@vince33x ...but theoretical 'tyranny of the majority'. I'm primarily interested in the real world and the abundance of examples which it provides. Oh, and since you like to quote de Tocqeville I'll assume you know his positions on working wage slavery. Funny that you'd even have the nerve to bring his name up. Chomsky often talks about him. Anyway, how about a few telling passges: "For Tocqueville—who was, unlike Maistre, a qualified friend of democracy, which he believed to be the God-ordained
@vince33x I've already quoted Tocqueville. You want more? Also, he himself was also from a privileged background, that is, the minority which always carries out the tyranny, not that he himself did. Here, please tell me what about this you don't understand: "One purpose of writing Democracy in America, according to Joshua Kaplan, was to help the people of France get a better understanding of their position between a fading aristocratic order and an emerging democratic order, and to help them...
....sort out the confusion.[2] Tocqueville saw democracy as an equation that balanced liberty and equality, concern for the individual as well as the community."
Much, much more...And at the same time he also supports inequality, so I'm sure this part makes you happy. He displays the usual concerns about the potential of the majority taking over which the tyranny of the minority have always worried about. Already discussed.
@kropotkinbeard1 I'm ambivalent about inequality but it is a fact of life. Some people are tall and good-looking and others are not. Some have musical ability and others don't. Some have a way with numbers and others don't. That's life, we've all got to deal with it. But if u want the greatest number to live well, then Capitalism is the only path to material well-being for the greatest number.
...direction of human history—there was no greater threat to the health and stability of this new order than such a tendency toward privatism."
And YOU like this fellow? Bwahahahaha....How about this one:
"Tocqueville's complaint was very different from Maistre's, however. Egotism, he thought, was a mere emotional disorder, the passionate and exaggerated self-love one could find manifested throughout human history."
@vince33x ..always fought FOR minorities. Sorry, dufus, but you've been had. My suggestion us to take all of your Ayn Rand books, and books having to do with the modern fake-libertarian school of anti-thought, and use them for tire braces or something. And in a free society taxes would of course be voluntary. They'd be something to look forward to paying. Only in a totalitarian society would they be considered otherwise. Taxes are not theft. Theft is taking from the system and not putting back.
@kropotkinbeard1 Apparently, ur idiocy is boundless. "Taxation is theft." (Thomas Jefferson; "The power to tax is the power to destroy." (Thomas Jefferson) U write as though you'd have people believe u to be an intellect, but ur not. Ur an idiot who believes government to be benign when in fact, it is governments down through the ages that have murdered hundreds of millions of people.
@vince33x Possibly, but you have shown nothing of the sort as of this sentence. You just keep saying it, but then demonstrate nothing. But go ahead, give it a try for once. Taxation has nothing to do with theft at all, Thomas Jefferson or not. He's not my master. You must have been thinking of the "property/slaves" he owned. Taxes are simply money people give to do with whatever the free people decide to do with them. If the free people aren't deciding what to do with them, then it's not...
@vince33x ...democracy and should move back into the direction of democracy and away from unaccountable private tyranny. You know, the faction of parasites in the society who take the most money from the system, the system which without they'd have nothing, and who are always looking for even further criminal ways not to put back? Yeah, those criminals. But not all are criminals. There are some honest wealthy folks who are aware of the faulty system which was designed by them and for their..
@kropotkinbeard1 U sound like one of those nitwits from the occupy movement. Simple question: How is wealth created? Do you think an enterprise like Ford Motor Co. just came about by accident?
@vince33x Wouldn't know. I'm not aware of any "nitwits" at OWS. I've only heard intelligent folks speaking. You know, the ones who actually understand such notions as freedom, democracy, making demands that those in their society participate as citizens instead of self-interested parasitical pricks. But since you support the master, a great sign of your concern for "liberty", "freedom", etc...I guess you you'd be against the rational OWS folks. Who cares about creating wealth? And I'm well aware
@kropotkinbeard1 Ur words: "Who cares about creating wealth?..." Unless wealth is created, you'll have a stone age society. Just what do u think wealth is?
@vince33x ..of how most all technology and invention has come about. The majority of it having come directly from the state and your tax dollars. Your computer, Internet, avionics, transistors, telecommunications, and on and on....ALL directly from the state. You're using at least three of these things right now. You should perhaps show some gratitude to the state for developing these things for you to use to come here and whine to me about the state. Hahaha.....
@kropotkinbeard1 You obviously know nothing of who and how the great human accomplishments have come about ur insane words: "the majority of it having come directly from the state..." Computer came from an amalgam of organizations and individuals including Univac, Tim Berners-Lee and Vinton Cerf are fathers of the Internet, Transistors came from two scientists at Bell Labs, Flight from two bicycle mechanics, the Wright Bros. of Dayton, OH, Telecommunications had their genesis with Alexander
@vince33x Graham Bell and Marconi and Edison. U r blindingly ignorant. Ur words again: "You should perhaps show some gratitude to the state..." The Fascist mantra is: EVERYTHING OF THE STATE, BY THE STATE, AND FOR THE STATE. U HAVE to be a Fascist with your mindset. Or a gov't worker (pretty much the same thing).
@vince33x ...own benefit. Warren Buffett to name one. He's an example of an honest parasite. He has taken from the system, and realizes that it's unfair in his favor. The taxes aren't the problem, it's that they favor the parasite class who either pay nothing at all, or not nearly enough. Again, I'm only concerned about this minority in the sense of considering what should be done with them. You keep speaking of "the government" like it's something other than the people. If it is, if there is
@kropotkinbeard1 I think Warren Buffet, politically, is an idiot and he demonstrates that many of the rich are clueless about economics and Free Markets, but how is he a parasite? Do u have any idea about what he did to amass his fortune? Here's another example of how ignorant u are: "The taxes aren't the problem, it's that they favor the parasite class who either pay nothing at all, or not nearly enough." Well, the top 1% of income earners paid 29.1% of their incomes in Federal taxes;
@vince33x The Middle class's effective tax rate is 15%, so proportionately, the top 1%'s effective tax rate is 94% higher than the Middle class's effective tax rate. BTW, government's ONLY legitimate function is to protect and secure INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND SECURE and PROTECT THE NATION from invasion and that's it. When gov't does more than that it has become illigitimate.
@vince33x ..an us(the people)/them(the government) dichotomy, well, this also supports my position that it's NOT a democracy and should move into the direction of democracy where there is no us/them dichotomy. You know, free people, freely deciding how they wish for their country to be designed and run. No governments which were freely elected by free people, which were authentically democratic, have killed no one. But if you have a single example I'd be happy to look at it.
@vince33x I have said nothing about taxes in the U.S. being voluntary. Ur honor, the defense rests and suggests that the drooling idiot over there is seeing things and hearing things which don't exist, and should therefore be confined to a mental hospital at least until he learns to read, as we believe this may help him with his disorder. I said that in a free society, a democratic society, where people freely decide what they wish to do with their money, then it would be voluntary...
@vince33x ...and happily so. If the free people living in the free democracy freely decide to pitch in X amount of their money in order to help society run more smoothly, as it even does to a large extent in non-democratic societies, then that's that. If one plans on living within a system which includes other people, you're simply not going to get your spoiled ass way all of the time. Adults understand such basic concepts as compromise, working together, and all the things usually learned by 8.
@kropotkinbeard1 So "if free people...decide" the Jews have way too much, just "vote it away from them. Is that it? That's democracy in the mind of Kropotkin?
@vince33x Uhh..Also, there is no left-wing media at all. The myth of the liberal media has been debunked for MAAAAAANY years now. My advice would be to put your angry little pee pee back in your pants, and read something for a change. If you wish to rip on Jewish something, focus your attention on Israeli crimes, terrorism, etc...
@kropotkinbeard1 Ur words, which are pure B/S: "The myth of the liberal media has been debunked for MAAAAAANY years now." Both Pew research and UCLA have done surveys that indicate 90% of those in the 'media elite' (i.e.>CBS, NBC, NYT, LAT, WashPost, TIME, NEWSWEEK, etc.) self ID themselves as "Democrat, Liberal, or Left-of-Center." Pew research touts itself as non-partisan and UCLA is one of the most Left-Wing campuses in the USA.
@ekeyra Your last bit of dribble simply has no evidence to support it. You really are weak at this. Also, I've already dealt with this about 30 times now. For not being the fan of someone whom you know nothing about but pretend to, your grasp of the concept of argumentation is so lacking. You're funny.
"Historians and other scholars have broadly confirmed Engels' description of communal management of shared resources. A summary of recent research concludes:
[W]hat existed in fact was not a "tragedy of the commons" but rather a triumph: that for hundreds of years -- and perhaps thousands, although written records do not exist to prove the longer era -- land was managed successfully by communities. (Cox 1985: 60)"
The "tragedy of the commons" myth has long been known to be a myth. Catch up
Of course, the difference between American state captalism and USSR state capitalism is a matter of degree, the USSR version post-Lenin having much more (greater of, higher magnitude etc.) of a crack down on autonomous freedoms, particulary when they concerned matters of direct and potential political concern contrary to the existence of Stalinism - you could probably eat whatever food you like or sing whatever songs you like for as long as it didn't threat the conduit of Stalinist capital.
@theyangist If he uses the word, he uses it correctly. If you're referring to his comments on wage slavery i.e.renting oneself out for another who profit from his labor, as already mentioned, he's simply repeating the rational, moral and logical sentiments of folks like Lincoln and the early Republican party (back when they were the Democrats) who had this as their parties platform that there should be no wage labor as it was only slightly better than chattel slavery, though less secure.
@kropotkinbeard1 I also find it extremely interesting that you justify chompsy's beliefs by repeating that abe lincoln believed it too. Didnt lincoln suspend habeas corpus and jail every journalist that dared to criticize his policies? I guess that was the logical, moral, and rational thing to do as well.
@ekeyra I'm "justifying" nothing. Earlier it was asserted that this notion was Chomsky's idea. I was simply providing data which showed that this was no new idea, and Chomsky simply happened to be referring to this as ONE example, not that it was even necessary. Is this all you've got? You second sentence is unrelated to the first, so I'm not sure what your point is. It has nothing to do with some folks recognizing the fact that working for wages i.e.renting yourself out was a milder slavery.
@ekeyra What's interesting, though slightly disgusting, is the fact that this is itselfcontrary to Libertarian principles. This is why those attempting to try and make apologetics for wage slavery are so hell bent on the "freedom to choose"(your master, the part they leave out) such an integral part. They do the same with "self-ownership", as if they really cared one iota about this. You need to look at what's behind these trivial and elementary ruses. It's REALLY not all that difficult.
@kropotkinbeard1 There's no such thing as a "rational sentiment." There are rational arguments, and there are rational explanations, but "rational sentiment" is empty verbiage. The same goes with "logical."
And wage labor is markedly better than slavery is, especially coercive slavery as it was practiced in the Antebellum U.S. Chomsky doesn't have a prayer of contesting to successful black entrepreneurs with a claim that "wage labor is only slightly better than slavery."
@theyangist It should have read "natural sentiment". That being said, perhaps you can read 'An essay by William James The Sentiment Of Rationality'. There are more. Boring. I have an idea. Rather than try and argue about topics you know so little about, why not take off the next month and read up on a...
so if you stop importing you become an anarchist type society-hmm interesting
Argastus 3 days ago
A purely capitalist society would self destruct within 5 minutes...hmmmm...what a ridiculous idea...capitalism is obviously an ideal but in its pure form unworkable...just as the atmosphere contains oxygen which supports life, but an atmosphere of 100% oxygen would prohibit the natural cycle of life as we know it. When one speaks of "capitalist" societies one is obviously referring to an environment where capitalist ideologies are given a reasonable amount of working space.
sooper2dooper3 4 days ago
Hej e
Bodhisattva1980 6 days ago
As a student about to graduate with an engineering degree, what really stood out to me was the comment about self-managing enterprises. Sounds like it might be a great idea to start one up. Perhaps even one to do with high-speed rail. :)
DeserTrackChannel 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
This guy is unbelievably boring.
OhmgrownCron 1 week ago
@OhmgrownCron
In his own words: "I like it that way."
en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org[slash]wiki[slash]Noam_Chomsky#Debates
aewester 1 week ago
@OhmgrownCron Yeah. Chomsky's lectures are compelling because of their substance.
DeserTrackChannel 1 week ago
im not trolling but... why many anarchists are bisexuals?
Homosexuality is part of anarchist ideology as atheism is for communism?
Just asking
God Bless USA and Israel
trifulquita15 2 weeks ago
@trifulquita15 Well i know your not trolling for asking a question like that the answer is that many people that are gay/bi are really... well people are very anti and yelling things and do other nasty things at them just for being it... in an anarchist society you can love anyone despite the race, gender... everyone is as much worth, despite your race, where you are born, hair colour, gender.. its not like that now.. look in the us how are gays looked on and mexicans? and so on..
smaug95swe 2 weeks ago
@smaug95swe i disagree, in an anarchist society people will be free to discriminate whoever they want. Even in the current society we can't force racists to be more tolerant. In an anarchist society we will see the ugly side of freedom
trifulquita15 2 weeks ago
@trifulquita15 how much have you read on anarcism etc? an anarchist societys aim is to have no sexism, no racism and so on read some god damn facts i just found an easy video for you /watch?v=aAXcy2NoGNk&feature=plcp&context=C38fcddfUDOEgsToPDskI707KztA4fz7r3Ko4aqU4g
Your welcome
smaug95swe 2 weeks ago
@smaug95swe no no no, u are confused. You think ALL people will be anarchists if we have an anarchist society. If we have an anarchist society many people will accept to live under anarchism, but they will never think like you. Unless you force these people to be anarchist
trifulquita15 1 week ago
@trifulquita15 That i do know, you cant really decide if someone is still gonna be against homosexuallity but look at it this way... yelling and harassing someone for being gay is wrong for the reason that being gay is freedom and if you think gayness is wrong you are against freedom, in no society everyone can be happy... but it can overall be better for each and every person in a anarchist society sorry for my bad eng... i hope you understand...
smaug95swe 1 week ago
@trifulquita15 God bless all nations and peoples.
Asshole.
aewester 1 week ago
@trifulquita15 God bless both the US and Israel? Aren't those different franchises?
wowthungsten 1 week ago
Chomsky: kicking no less ass than he did in his thirties. The guy's a beast.
reader642 2 weeks ago 17
@4teepee It's in the nature of any competition that each player wishes to eliminate his competitors, this is what it is to win. The point is that once you start playing badly again, your competition enters back into the race. Any monopoly which sustains itself only by offering better and cheaper products deserves to exist, which obviously benefits consumers, and it is the only way to win in a free market. State police -> individual property rights -> trade -> mutual prosperity.
eggory 2 weeks ago
If pure competition really existed within industries, it would be hard to generate profits, and companies would be failing all the time, leading to a lot of squandered resources. What really happens is that industries consolidate, and competition is thereby limited.
4teepee 2 weeks ago
@4teepee Competition is generated by new minds entering the market upon notice of opportunity, opportunity created by anyone whose products' quallity and prices are less than they could be.
eggory 2 weeks ago
@eggory There is a reason why consolidation occurs. It is not the result of a fluke. There are barriers to entry and more money to be made, even when there is a new entrant, by consolidation and monopoly or oligopoly pricing.
4teepee 2 weeks ago
@4teepee If, every time a new business of any size came up and started underselling the monopoly in its own market, that monopoly simply bought them out to sustain market control, then everyone would want to invest in that market simply for the guarantee of immediate return, of getting bought out, and the monopoly company would very soon be over-capitalized, in a way that would not be remotely sustainable. Eventually they would need to capitulate and lower prices to compete.
eggory 2 weeks ago
@eggory Wrong. The only monopolies that exist for long periods of time are those with governmental assistance.
jozzo6 2 weeks ago
@jozzo6 Monopolies can happen without state intervention in the economy, but then they would have to earn their monopoly instead of just "earning" the special privileges mandated by the state. But you are obviously an anarchist, which is a bit silly. There are a few institutional rules lacking which a society could not have capitalism. All you can do is argue that they would exist too in anarchy, but that they would not be called laws. By their very nature, that is what they would be.
eggory 2 weeks ago
@eggory Te only way to attain monopoly w/out State interference is to be the most efficient producer with the most competitive price. If you are able to price with large margins and gov't keeps markets free and open it will be impossible to maintain a monopoly. Show me where such a monopoly exists, where gov't ensures free and open markets.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@4teepee What r u talking about? Why do u think 80% of new businesses fail within 5 yrs? What really happens is that large businesses, which love regulations, get cozy w/gov't regulators to keep competition out.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x You just proved my point. Of course, most of the businesses that fail are not capital intensive. If they were, huge amounts of resources would be going down the drain.
4teepee 2 weeks ago
@4teepee I didn't make a qualification one way or the other about capital intensive vs. less cap intensive. Only that most biz fail within 5 yrs. of start-up. Many existing businesses try to use gov't to protect themselves from competition, when gov't's ought to work to keep markets free and open and too often do not. It is Gov't that is usually the enemy of competition.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x I made the point about capital intensive as opposed to labor intensive. And capitalists are the enemy of competition.
4teepee 2 weeks ago
@4teepee U r right, 'capitalists' r often the enemy of competition, though not 'Capitalism.'
Private property Rights, Free and Open Markets and the free flow of Capital are the essence of Capitalism.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
4teepee 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vince33x Monopoly and oligopoly are characteristic of really existing capitalism and capitalists. Don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, any kind of genuine capitalist system would soon collapse. At a basic level, for example, the limited liability corporation is a creation of government. Then, there is taxpayer financed infrastructure, eminent domain laws, and on and on.
4teepee 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4teepee What real world example does Chomsky ever refer to when he says: "any kind of genuine capitalist system would soon collapse."? He makes this assertion w/out referring to any example. What is he talking about? The corporation is a product of gov't and its history goes back at least as far as the British East India Co. (chartered in 1601).
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x
That's one part of the equation. The other part is that businesses that have been around a lot longer can often already offer better, cheaper services & products because of just that. They've had years and years to 'perfect' their products and market strategies. New businesses are more dependant on loans & pay relatively more interest.
Of course, political influence and one-sided regulation is also a big part of the deal, especially in the US.
StrangeYoghurt 2 weeks ago
@StrangeYoghurt The #1 reason new businesses enter a market is when margins are high. This is why it's so important for gov't to maintain free & open markets. If gov't serves to protect existing
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x businesses, there will b no reason for price competition, which benefits the consumer.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
Everytime Chomsky says 'we don't have capitalism, we have state capitalism' I'm like 'damn not again'. Capitalism is a direct outgrow of feudalism, and always rested on legal privilege given by the state (capitalist private property, patents, monopoly of credit, land monopoly, decreasing of labor's value through regulations, taxation, tarrifs). There's no other capitalism than state capitalism. Laissez-Faire capitalism doesn't exist outside of Ayn Rand's books.
GompCelticPL 3 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL For most of the 19th Century, both the USA and GB were as close as any nation has been to Laissez-Faire, and the std. of living in both nations improved rapidly. What about trademarks and copyrights? Should they also b abandoned? Of the 4 elements of production (Management, Capital, Resource and Labor) labor is the LEAST VALUABLE, because whenever it can b replace by Capital, it makes sense to do so. Capitalism is man's escape from feudalism, serfdom and slavery.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@vince33x Lol, don't be silly. During the era you love serfs were deprived of their land and their resources to make them go to the cities and work as wage slaves. It's not freedom. Also if labor is the least valuable then you could spare us your propaganda and try to write comments without putting any labor into it...
GompCelticPL 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL Their land and their resources are what enabled them to the glorious life of subsistance agriculture. They chose to move to the cities because amenities which had never been produced before as well as amenities that for the first time were affordably mass-producable were available to those willing to participate in their production, which naturally necessitated living near the factory just as they had previously lived ON the farms. Geeze!
eggory 2 weeks ago
@eggory Their land and their resources are artificial privilege propped by the state, which artificially holds the worker back from the means of production, and entering into the market themselves thus forcing them into wage slavery. Geeze, getting sick of this capitalist bullshit.
GompCelticPL 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL State capitalism is very different to true capitalism...in actual fact it completely undermines liberty and progress. Don't get sucked into thinking that socialism is any better.
jozzo6 2 weeks ago
@jozzo6 True capitalism? You mean a pipe dream made up by Ayn Rand or Mises. Yeah, it's different. There has never been nor will be any other capitalism than state capitalism, the very term capitalism was created (by Thomas Hodgskin I believe, or Marx I'm not sure) to describe the system of legal privileges on the part of capital. Capitalism can't survive without a state.
GompCelticPL 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL I told u why it was the least important element (I didn't say 'valuable' u did - is that ur idea of a rhetorical device?) of production. Why? Because whenever u can substitute Capital for Labor, it's usually done. I've already said this. And, it's not propaganda, manufacturing businesses do this all the time, so it's a real world example.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
@GompCelticPL Serfs didn't own land, they worked the land owned by the Lord of the Manor so to speak. Going back in time to discover the origins of how the land was acquired, I suspect one would find it was acquired by tribal leaders who had the most loyal and best fighters. But I'm only guessing.
vince33x 2 weeks ago
Ignore the troll, his hobby is trolling every single libertarian or anarchist video he can find on YouTube.
"Can't you see how superior my ideas are, based on biased junk like blog entries and links to videos made by clueless lefties? Everything you say is wrong because you're indoctrinated droolers cult members, and also stupid doo-doo-heads! That's not an ad hominem attack of your arguments because I say so! There's no gun in the room! Marxism is great! You can't prove I've ever been wrong!"
theredscourge 3 weeks ago
@theredscourge Really? Evidence? Trolling? Evidence? I actually make comments related to the topics on every thread I go to. You like talking about me, only, it would appear. This makes you the troll (See 'projection' in a psych. dictionary) I've not once said a word about my ideas being superior, not have I left a single piece of junk, nor has there been any evidence provided which would support this claim. You're shooting in the dark and not hitting anything, are you? And, there hasn't been a
kropotkinbeard1 3 weeks ago
@theredscourge ...single example of ad hominem attacks. In fact, I already demonstrated with evidence that this was nonsense. You have done nothing to counter. I haven't mentioned Marx once, nor have you shown that I have. But we ALL know that if you're not a right-wing drooler, you're a "Marxist", as if you know anything about Marx. But you DID get the last sentence correct. You have no once demonstrated that I have been wrong. Still waiting. You're funny though. Don't stop. Talk more about me!
kropotkinbeard1 3 weeks ago
"It was the period of probably the freest press ever..." seriously? Youtube. Blog. Facebook. Anyone else a little shocked by that?
quepasoconelmundo27 3 weeks ago
@quepasoconelmundo27 You tube isn't press and the vast majority of people do not get their news from youtube. He means per capita and given the means of communication at the time, MINUS all the nonsense crap as one finds even in the MSM today. It's embarrassing how pathetic news is today as compared to the time he referred when folks were much more literate and would have only held scorn for anything resembling something like FOX News. That you would consider this news supports his comments.
kropotkinbeard1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quepasoconelmundo27 You tube isn't press and the vast majority of people do not get their news from youtube. He means per capita and given the means of communication at the time, MINUS all the nonsense crap as one finds even in the MSM today. It's embarrassing how pathetic news is today as compared to the time he referred when folks were much more literate and would have only held scorn for anything resembling something like FOX News. That you would consider this news supports his comments.
kropotkinbeard1 3 weeks ago
kropotkinbeard1 please stop embarrasing yourself, its pathetic how you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over without actually making an argument.
LibertyRealm 3 weeks ago
@LibertyRealm I have dome nothing BUT make arguments. You just keep whining and not making arguments yourself, as you have done here yet again, and that I've pointed out, again. My evidence supplied.
kropotkinbeard1 3 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1
Blatant assertions are not "arguments", an argumet must have logical consistency but dont worry I never expected much from you anyway.
Peace.
LibertyRealm 3 weeks ago
The state doesnt represent anyone, even under a perfect democracy, because society is just an abstraction.
Only individuals can represent themselves, individual with rights and property.
LibertyRealm 3 weeks ago
@LibertyRealm "Individual rights and property". OooooOOoooo...Never head that before. You have no rights or property other than what society decides you have. Grow up.
kropotkinbeard1 3 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Are u saying that rights are 'granted' to us? Say it ain't so Joe!
vince33x 3 weeks ago
@vince33x Uhhh...No, I'm saying that an alien brought them down to us from deep space. No, wait, I'm saying that they just fell from our butts. No, wait, I'm saying that there are no such things as rights at all. And most definitely no such thing as "natural rights", unless by "natural" we mean that people just create them and decide what hey are. People create rights. Outside this, there is no such thing.
kropotkinbeard1 3 weeks ago
The United States and the "Challenge of Relativity"
Noam Chomsky
chomsky.info/articles/199811--DOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Haven't said a single word about "enforcing" anything, nor does it apply to anything I've said."
"And if anyone doesn't wish to put back into the system from which they've taken, you know, the thieves then we can decide as a free society what should happen to the criminals."
Oh ok.
ekeyra 3 weeks ago
"These are all feasible alternatives" Really, and how would Chomsky effect these changes. "decisions could be made differently..." Why doesn't he say what he means? He says he's an Libertarian Socialist. What twaddle! He's just a run-of-the-mill Socialist and Socialism - the idea - has been the greatest contributor to mass murder in man's history.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
What capitalist system is he talking about that "self-destructed in 5 minutes? This guy is a moron, who happens to be a good linguist...an idiot-savant if you will, with emphasis on the 'idiot' part!
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Your an inbred tea bagger. Go somewhere and shoot cans off a post or something. You have nothing to offer here.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
"No capitalist system would ever survive" What he means is without a state to protect property rights, capitalism would never survive.
cosmicforums 1 month ago
Believe what you want, but capitalism is about profit and LOSSES. If corporations get money from the goverment to cover their losses it distorts the whole system. And this has nothing to do with regulation,rule of law or the chain of command in institutions. Either you embrace this capitalist system or u give up on it completely. I mean even goverment ownership of the means of production (like a hospital) makes more sense than goverment helping corporations (current system).
LucBertolotti 1 month ago
The role of the State with Capitalism is the Rule of Law and the equal treatment of ALL men under the Rule of Law and the enforcement of property rights next to sound monetary policies. Without these requirements Capitalism cannot work. See the explicit details in the works of Friedrich Hayek that are never mentioned by the Chomky's of our time.
DutchsMaria 1 month ago
@DutchsMaria Actually hayeks work was about how knowledge is decentralized and the state, being removed from the sphere of voluntary exchanges, has no way of discerning this information. Therefore whenever the state intervenes in the economy, it disrupts pricing signals and economic coordination, leading to depressions and recessions when investments are shown to be unsustainable.
ekeyra 1 month ago
@ekeyra
But we are not talking about the State intervening in the economy but instead upholding the requirements needed in order for Free Markets to work , like upholding the Rule of Law ( not happening today with our Two Tier Justice system) and the role of Sound Monetary policies or Sound Money. Without these requirements in place , free markets cannot work by the admittance of those in history that have advocated on free markets.
DutchsMaria 1 month ago
@DutchsMaria Your first problem is believing that monopolizing the court system and administering monetary policy, are not themselves interventions into the economy. The second is that the state does not create money. They can enforce legal tender laws, but it is only individual subjective judgements that determine what people value. So no, not only does the free market not need the state, but the very interventions you claim are crucial to its survival are its biggest hinderances.
ekeyra 1 month ago
@ekeyra Maybe time to read the Constitution? The Government as it should exist today has duties. Coining money is one and providing the Judicial branch is two! The Congress has the power to coin money but they have passed the Federal Reserve act in 1913 and given it to a private entity so Congress could spend without the taxpayer knowing it is being taxed ( our empire comes to mind)
DutchsMaria 1 month ago
@DutchsMaria Read lysander spooner instead and you'd know the constitution is binding to noone other than those who signed it. It cannot be enforced on anyone else because noone else can be said to have voluntarily bound themselves to it. There is no reason to give any one institution or organization a monopoly on coining money or judicial services. However the real problem is that whether or not they are constitutional has no bearing on whether or not they are in fact market interventions.
ekeyra 1 month ago
@ekeyra Your suggestion is? I mean lets face it, mankind is deeply flawed and corrupt. Its in our nature. What you are bascially saying is , no format in any form can solve the problems or execute oversight and demand accountability.
DutchsMaria 1 month ago
"The only significant cases of overstocking found by the leading modern expert on the English commons involved wealthy landowners who deliberately put too many animals onto the pasture in order to weaken their much poorer neighbors' position in disputes over the enclosure (privatization) of common lands (Neeson 1993: 156)."
Is it really necessary that I have to spoon-feed you like this? I know you're not going to do the work on your own, or even know where to look. You can just thank me.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 1. Wall of text. Not only does it show that you cannot summarize your ideas, three quarters of your obscenely long rant was nothing but rhetorical questions that you provide your own answers for.
2. Taxes collected with violence or at the very least the implied threat of violence is in no way coercion, yet wage labor, which you are free to accept, refuse, or negotiate, is coercion? For being a fan of a linguist its stunning that your grasp of this concept is so lacking.
ekeyra 1 month ago
@ekeyra 1. Irrelavant. You either have an argument or you don't. I don't need a lecture on style. Not interested. Also, not evidence of "ranting", not that this is a bad thing.
2. Taxes aren't collected with violence, nor should they be as anyone civil should happily pay them. Who on earth would not wish to contribute to their own society? Ahhh..."coercion"! Finally! Can really be a fake libertarian with saying it at least once a day. And, freedom to choose your master is itself coercion.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Irrelevancy was the issue all along.
ekeyra 1 month ago
@ekeyra Yes, the irrelevancy of your non-responses. What that an argument? And which of Chomsky's books did you say you had read?
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 "Taxes aren't collected with violence, nor should they be as anyone civil should happily pay them. Who on earth would not wish to contribute to their own society?"
Off the top of my head, ... anyone living in germany say late 30s early 40s?
ekeyra 1 month ago
@ekeyra So, you're saying that the Germans didn't want to pay taxes at this time, but had to anyway? Well, at least you're supporting the my position that it wasn't a democracy. Secondly, they've obviously grown up as an article which just came out a couple of months ago already had 44 signatories of wealthy Germans saying they believed they should pay more taxes. Why can't those in the U.S. be so honest and civilized? A "slippery slope"? Haha Anyway, here's some more text from the real world .
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@ekeyra ..to choke on: "The petition has 44 signatories so far, and will be presented to newly re-elected Chancellor Angela Merkel. The group say the financial crisis is leading to an increase in unemployment, poverty and social inequality. Simply donating money to deal with the problems is not enough, they want a change in the whole approach. "The path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice," they say in the petition. Those who had...
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@ekeyra .... "made a fortune through inheritance, hard work, hard-working, successful entrepreneurship, or investment" should contribute by paying more to alleviate the crisis."
But, I mean, what would they know? They're only the wealthy, like, say Buffett. What would he know about paying taxes, other than admitting hoe doesn't pay enough. And, please spare me the "Well he can always pay more of he wants to" nonsense. Not interested. Remember? The real world is better.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@ekeyra abovetopsecretDOTcom/forum/thread734386/pg1
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@ekeyra Tax collection is pure FORCE. Anyone believing otherwise is an imbecile. If u refuse to pay ur property tax, the county will place a lien on ur property. If u still refuse to pay, the sheriff will evict u. If u resist this eviction, the Sheriff will use all the force necessary to evict u - including killing u. This happens all the time but our Left-Wing, Jew-dominated media refuse to report these occurrences.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Wow i was with you 100% until I got to the "jew run media".
ekeyra 1 month ago
@ekeyra Does the truth bother you?
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x Taxation has nothing to do with "force" of any kind in a free society, or free people, making free decisions, in a free and democratic fashion. Therefore, IF taxes are, in fact, being forced from people, it demonstrates that it is either not a democracy, as a democracy would allow no such thing, or it is a democracy being abused. In a democracy of free people, making choices about how they wish their money to be spent, would welcome such contributions. Tax would be viewed positively.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 If ur going to be idiotic, well then it's pointless. But everything government does is through FORCE or the threat of FORCE. The problem w/people like u is that u view democracy as simply mob rule where one group of people, if the can muster the votes, has the right to steal from another group of people. U must also think taxes are 'voluntary.' Of course, if you believe that u r a naive nitwit.
vince33x 1 month ago
@vince33x No evidence of my being idiotic. Just an assertion with no evidence provided, which is idiotic itself. Sorry, but I'm quite familiar with the religion of government=force nonsense. It can demand force. Nothing inherent that it does so. Depends on how people have designed the society. They could design it whereby they allow it to have force, you know, as in most anti-democratic states, but there's no law of nature which says it has to be this way. Not at all. Also, you're making the
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 U must b a gov't worker to believe such nonsense. "Government is not eloquence or reason, it is FORCE and, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." (George Washington) I'll take his words over ur nonsense any day.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x "Government worker"? A free and democratic government, chosen by free people, who freely decide how they wish for their society to be designed, would have nothing to do with "force" of anything. If it's using force, then it's not democratic and it should move back to the rational, free, logical, moral position which IS democracy. I agree that the U.S. is NOT this at present. This is precisely because it has moved away from democracy, and due to the interference by unaccountable private
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 U continue to exhibit ignorance - especially of American history. The USA was founded as a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. The states were free to set their own standards on who was allowed to vote (in most cases, you had to own property or pay taxes). At the Federal level, the house was chosen by direct election (thus it became known as "The people's House), Senators were chosen by their state Legislatures and the President was chosen by 'electors' who were elected in each state.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x We have been moving toward 'pure democracy' (something our Founders warned against because it would lead to factionalism and mob rule - I think they're proving right): Now no state may have its own qualifications as to who may or may not vote, Senators are now chosen by direct election (17th Amendment) and with each Presidential election we hear cries for getting rid of the Electoral College. The USa has moved toward democracy NOT AWAY from it.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x Perhaps, but you have shown nothing to indicate this. And I have said almost nothing of American history, though I can if you wish. The U.S. is a representative democracy, but a rather weak one. But this isn't even relevant to anything I've been saying for the most part. Who cares how the U.S. was "founded". The states were and are ALWAYS under the the Federal government. Sorry. I know how some folks would really like for states to have all power, but, in the end, they don't. And with
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...the way things have been going i.e.moving even further away from democracy and toward more and more power being held by unaccountable private tyrannies, you'd sure better hope that things move away from states having more power as this makes the pillage, plunder, and tyranny of private power to be much easier. I mean, the theory that having power in smaller areas sounds nice, and I'd be for it. However, with the way the society has been working, primarily since the criminal..
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...Reagan began the tragedy 30 years ago, this would NOT be a good thing. But if you can demonstrate to me how private tyrannies, minorities by definition i.e.tyranny of the minority (the REAL world example), would not have this sort of power, then I'm open for suggestions in considering how this might work. No problem at all. After all, I'm pretty much an anti-statist, as everything I've said indicates. Actually, more of a socialist/anarchist/democrat. That being said, what you've..
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 OK, what power does EXXON have over you? Compared to the power gov't has over you. Exxon cant arrest u. Gov't can not only arrest u, their IRS can take everything u own without due process. The ENEMY of LIBERTY is gov't that's why Jefferson said: "That government is best which governs least."
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ..written here in no way, shape, or form alters anything I've been saying. If anything it supports most of what I've asserted. Of course it was designed from the beginning by the white, propertied, wealthy minority, and has been pretty much maintained as such till today. And if the people allow it to stay this way, then that's what they do, as free people living in a free country. Personally, I'm against the tyranny of the minority, as are most people who understand reality.
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I guess that's why the USA created the greatest amount of wealth ever created in the history of mankind. And, I guess that's why the avg. poor person in the USA LIVES BETTER than the avg. middle class person in Europe. Simple questions even a nitwit like u should be able to answer: 1) What is wealth? 2) How is wealth created?
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Ur view of democracy appears absolutist. So, do u believe if a majority of the folks vote to confiscate the property of Jews, would that be OK?
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x Not sure what you mean regarding absolutist, but, if I do understand correctly, then, probably, yes, I do believe this. However, again, your example of the Jews is precisely what does NOT happen with democratically-minded free people. In the REAL world, NOT the world of theory, the democratically-minded people ARE the ones fighting to make sure that the Jewish property isn't taken away. And this has ALWAYS been the case. To people with even a minimal understanding of democracy, this...
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 A democracy absolutist basically believes in majority rule no matter what. U sound as though u r a 'democracy absolutist.' BTW, in the REAL WORLD, the majority has sacked the minority many times. What do you think happened in the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution? Mobs have been stealing and murdering for centuries. What do you think the barbarians did to Rome?
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...isn't even a serious question. Just ask anyone who has every fought for any minorities. Ask me. I can tell you who has and hasn't fought against minorities, and who has fought to support them. Sorry, but you've been indoctrinated, as consciously planned, by the propaganda of the tyranny of the minority who have basically persuaded folks like you, who they actually despise, to unwittingly support them. Look at the tea baggers for a VERY clear example.
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 You write like a 14 yr. old. Where have you done any fighting?
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...tyrannies. But even with the paltry anti-democratic interference by the criminal folks who fight against democracy, there are still enough formal mechanisms in place to move in this direction without the use of force. It's called voting in the adult world. Nothing to do with force. And if force exists, it's because you allow it to. Get off your lazy as and change the place. Thanks, also, to democracy and the freedom it entails, you're allowed to do this. I'm sure you'd take the...
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...words of the white minority of property owners who made it okay for only themselves to vote, etc....It's called the "tyranny of the minority". I'm not interested in this minority of the top 1%, nor any repercussions they may experience for putting themselves in this position.
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Jews are 1.9% of the USA's population, they control at least 22% of the USA's wealth. Do u think under democracy that it's OK for the majority to vote for the confiscation of Jewish-owned property because they have far more than their 'fair share.'
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x So, you ARE saying that the power lies with the minority and therefore supporting what I've been saying. Also, when wealth is so concentrated in the hands of so few, they are NOT the minority anymore. That's as if I were to have a machine gun and 10 fellows with BB guns jumped me, and I whined about being the victim of the "mob". Sorry, but even though I'm physically outnumbered, I'm hardly outnumbered with power. So, I could care less if they're Jewish or not. This has no bearing at
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 These are facts: Jews are 1.9% of the USA's population and they control at least 22% of the USA's wealth. In ur view, if the majority says it's unfair that Jews have that much wealth, it's OK for the majority to vote that Jews have to give up most of their wealth and give it to others. That's what ur saying, isn't it?
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...all, as it may have with Hitler, yet another example of the tyranny of the minority at work. If the free people in a the free society decide that they think it's okay for a small percentage of people to take from society without putting back into it at whatever amount they feel is reasonable, then fine. They freely chose this. Unfortunately, due to the lack of democracy, they usually don't have such choice. Again, the problem is a lack of any meaningful democracy.
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...typical mistake made by those who know little or nothing about democracy. Before you go any further you need to learn about what democracy, or better yet, anarchism, socialism, etc...There is no such thing as "mob rule" in a democracy. Doesn't exist. And your tired old example of the fairy tale majority taking away from the minority is nothing but a fairy tale with little relationship to reality. In the real world where I live, it has been precisely the democratic forces which have
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Our own President is engaging in mob-rule tactics by demonizing those who have created wealth and he has admitted that his re-election will be about taking from those who have created wealth and redistributing it to his constituencies. Alex de Tocqueville, in his book: DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, long ago noted that "democracy will only last until the politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." Progressive tax rates are a product of mob-rule.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x Hahahaha...He is supporting the tyranny of the minority to a large extent. "Those who have created wealth"? Hahahaha...As if this is supposed to mean something. They played the system and taken from the system a disproportionate amount like parasite have done throughout history, but at its most extreme right now. And you cheer the parasites? Hahaha...And you pretend to have concern about freedom? Hahaha...Not that he is at all anyway, but he shouldn't even have to take money from the
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...parasite who took it from the system in the first place. They should happily return it as several have already done, once they grew the hell up, learned that the system had been unfairly designed to benefit a few, realized the immorality of it, and decided to respond. You're little more than a slave cheerleading for your next master. The "mob rule" fairy tale has LONG been exposed as precisely that, a fairy tale. The "tyranny of the minority" is the problem and has been so...
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...throughout history, and in ever country. There are no examples of a tyranny of the majority by a free and democratic society. But of you have a single example I'd be happy to hear about it. Simply listening to your outdated whines which you've unwittingly internalized via tyranny of the minority propaganda is boring, though entertaining. I've already posted data dealing with this issue. Thy 'tyranny of the minority' which has always existed in the real world, and the non-existent..
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 It's quite clear that u r mentally retarded.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x Name calling and no supporting evidence presented. Even retarded people understand this concept. next!
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Tell me something Krop, which is the higher value: Individual Liberty or a democratic form of government? Which is the higher value: Economic Liberty or Political Liberty?
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x The choice is nonsense. Any democratic form of government would have to include individual liberty or it would not be democratic. You really DO know nothing about the most fundamentals of democracy, do you? You've swallowed to much anti-democratic propaganda and are basically wallowing around in the the same Truman Show which Scientologists are. Without political liberty there is NO economic liberty, so that's a non-starter. Also, the black and white either or choices here remind me
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 The choice is not nonsense. Indeed, we see it in the real world - BTW, have you ever been there? - in Singapore, it is an authoritarian state with a very free and open economy and one of the highest standards of living in the world. I prefer a free and open market economy with a constitution that protects individual liberty and prevents the majority from stealing from the rest.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ..of the totalitarian minded tea baggers and fake libertarians espouse.
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 We have examples in the USA. A majority of the folks voted for FDR and now we are all FORCED to join the Social Security System. In a FREE SOCIETY I would have a choice as to whether or not I wished to be part of Social Security. A majority of the folks voted for LBJ and he FORCED a lot of young guys into the military to fight his was in SE Asia - example of GOVERNMENT FORCE. He also FORCED us all to join MediCare/MedicAid. In a Free Society I would have the choice to join
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x or not join. But these were two Fascist Presidents who believe in the use of FORCE to achieve their ends. Same with Obama and ObamaCARE. 1st he is FORCING insurance companies into providing insurance without regard to pre-existing conditions which is driving up insurance premiums and will eventually drive Private insurers out of the marketplace leaving only the government to provide health insurance - which is what Obama wants anyway and then gov't bureaucrats will decide what
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x treatments you may and may not have. For example, if you are 75 and need a total hip replacement, you will not be able to get. Then Private Clinics will sprout up and they'll be illegal and our gov't will end up arresting doctors for giving services to people willing to pay for those services. This is the Fascist world of kropotkin. And there will be revolution against tyrannical scum like you.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...but theoretical 'tyranny of the majority'. I'm primarily interested in the real world and the abundance of examples which it provides. Oh, and since you like to quote de Tocqeville I'll assume you know his positions on working wage slavery. Funny that you'd even have the nerve to bring his name up. Chomsky often talks about him. Anyway, how about a few telling passges: "For Tocqueville—who was, unlike Maistre, a qualified friend of democracy, which he believed to be the God-ordained
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Tocqueville also believed it (democracy) doomed to fail.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x I've already quoted Tocqueville. You want more? Also, he himself was also from a privileged background, that is, the minority which always carries out the tyranny, not that he himself did. Here, please tell me what about this you don't understand: "One purpose of writing Democracy in America, according to Joshua Kaplan, was to help the people of France get a better understanding of their position between a fading aristocratic order and an emerging democratic order, and to help them...
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
....sort out the confusion.[2] Tocqueville saw democracy as an equation that balanced liberty and equality, concern for the individual as well as the community."
Much, much more...And at the same time he also supports inequality, so I'm sure this part makes you happy. He displays the usual concerns about the potential of the majority taking over which the tyranny of the minority have always worried about. Already discussed.
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I'm ambivalent about inequality but it is a fact of life. Some people are tall and good-looking and others are not. Some have musical ability and others don't. Some have a way with numbers and others don't. That's life, we've all got to deal with it. But if u want the greatest number to live well, then Capitalism is the only path to material well-being for the greatest number.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
...direction of human history—there was no greater threat to the health and stability of this new order than such a tendency toward privatism."
And YOU like this fellow? Bwahahahaha....How about this one:
"Tocqueville's complaint was very different from Maistre's, however. Egotism, he thought, was a mere emotional disorder, the passionate and exaggerated self-love one could find manifested throughout human history."
Tell your racist Rand self-lovers this!
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ..always fought FOR minorities. Sorry, dufus, but you've been had. My suggestion us to take all of your Ayn Rand books, and books having to do with the modern fake-libertarian school of anti-thought, and use them for tire braces or something. And in a free society taxes would of course be voluntary. They'd be something to look forward to paying. Only in a totalitarian society would they be considered otherwise. Taxes are not theft. Theft is taking from the system and not putting back.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 Apparently, ur idiocy is boundless. "Taxation is theft." (Thomas Jefferson; "The power to tax is the power to destroy." (Thomas Jefferson) U write as though you'd have people believe u to be an intellect, but ur not. Ur an idiot who believes government to be benign when in fact, it is governments down through the ages that have murdered hundreds of millions of people.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x Possibly, but you have shown nothing of the sort as of this sentence. You just keep saying it, but then demonstrate nothing. But go ahead, give it a try for once. Taxation has nothing to do with theft at all, Thomas Jefferson or not. He's not my master. You must have been thinking of the "property/slaves" he owned. Taxes are simply money people give to do with whatever the free people decide to do with them. If the free people aren't deciding what to do with them, then it's not...
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...democracy and should move back into the direction of democracy and away from unaccountable private tyranny. You know, the faction of parasites in the society who take the most money from the system, the system which without they'd have nothing, and who are always looking for even further criminal ways not to put back? Yeah, those criminals. But not all are criminals. There are some honest wealthy folks who are aware of the faulty system which was designed by them and for their..
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 U sound like one of those nitwits from the occupy movement. Simple question: How is wealth created? Do you think an enterprise like Ford Motor Co. just came about by accident?
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x Wouldn't know. I'm not aware of any "nitwits" at OWS. I've only heard intelligent folks speaking. You know, the ones who actually understand such notions as freedom, democracy, making demands that those in their society participate as citizens instead of self-interested parasitical pricks. But since you support the master, a great sign of your concern for "liberty", "freedom", etc...I guess you you'd be against the rational OWS folks. Who cares about creating wealth? And I'm well aware
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kropotkinbeard1 Ur words: "Who cares about creating wealth?..." Unless wealth is created, you'll have a stone age society. Just what do u think wealth is?
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ..of how most all technology and invention has come about. The majority of it having come directly from the state and your tax dollars. Your computer, Internet, avionics, transistors, telecommunications, and on and on....ALL directly from the state. You're using at least three of these things right now. You should perhaps show some gratitude to the state for developing these things for you to use to come here and whine to me about the state. Hahaha.....
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 You obviously know nothing of who and how the great human accomplishments have come about ur insane words: "the majority of it having come directly from the state..." Computer came from an amalgam of organizations and individuals including Univac, Tim Berners-Lee and Vinton Cerf are fathers of the Internet, Transistors came from two scientists at Bell Labs, Flight from two bicycle mechanics, the Wright Bros. of Dayton, OH, Telecommunications had their genesis with Alexander
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x Graham Bell and Marconi and Edison. U r blindingly ignorant. Ur words again: "You should perhaps show some gratitude to the state..." The Fascist mantra is: EVERYTHING OF THE STATE, BY THE STATE, AND FOR THE STATE. U HAVE to be a Fascist with your mindset. Or a gov't worker (pretty much the same thing).
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...own benefit. Warren Buffett to name one. He's an example of an honest parasite. He has taken from the system, and realizes that it's unfair in his favor. The taxes aren't the problem, it's that they favor the parasite class who either pay nothing at all, or not nearly enough. Again, I'm only concerned about this minority in the sense of considering what should be done with them. You keep speaking of "the government" like it's something other than the people. If it is, if there is
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I think Warren Buffet, politically, is an idiot and he demonstrates that many of the rich are clueless about economics and Free Markets, but how is he a parasite? Do u have any idea about what he did to amass his fortune? Here's another example of how ignorant u are: "The taxes aren't the problem, it's that they favor the parasite class who either pay nothing at all, or not nearly enough." Well, the top 1% of income earners paid 29.1% of their incomes in Federal taxes;
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x The Middle class's effective tax rate is 15%, so proportionately, the top 1%'s effective tax rate is 94% higher than the Middle class's effective tax rate. BTW, government's ONLY legitimate function is to protect and secure INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND SECURE and PROTECT THE NATION from invasion and that's it. When gov't does more than that it has become illigitimate.
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ..an us(the people)/them(the government) dichotomy, well, this also supports my position that it's NOT a democracy and should move into the direction of democracy where there is no us/them dichotomy. You know, free people, freely deciding how they wish for their country to be designed and run. No governments which were freely elected by free people, which were authentically democratic, have killed no one. But if you have a single example I'd be happy to look at it.
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 What gov't are u talking about? What nation do u think has it 'right?'
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 U think taxes in the USA are voluntary? Ur honor, the prosecution rests and suggests the defendant enter a plea of insanity!
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x I have said nothing about taxes in the U.S. being voluntary. Ur honor, the defense rests and suggests that the drooling idiot over there is seeing things and hearing things which don't exist, and should therefore be confined to a mental hospital at least until he learns to read, as we believe this may help him with his disorder. I said that in a free society, a democratic society, where people freely decide what they wish to do with their money, then it would be voluntary...
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@vince33x ...and happily so. If the free people living in the free democracy freely decide to pitch in X amount of their money in order to help society run more smoothly, as it even does to a large extent in non-democratic societies, then that's that. If one plans on living within a system which includes other people, you're simply not going to get your spoiled ass way all of the time. Adults understand such basic concepts as compromise, working together, and all the things usually learned by 8.
kropotkinbeard1 4 weeks ago
@kropotkinbeard1 So "if free people...decide" the Jews have way too much, just "vote it away from them. Is that it? That's democracy in the mind of Kropotkin?
vince33x 4 weeks ago
@vince33x Uhh..Also, there is no left-wing media at all. The myth of the liberal media has been debunked for MAAAAAANY years now. My advice would be to put your angry little pee pee back in your pants, and read something for a change. If you wish to rip on Jewish something, focus your attention on Israeli crimes, terrorism, etc...
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kropotkinbeard1 Ur words, which are pure B/S: "The myth of the liberal media has been debunked for MAAAAAANY years now." Both Pew research and UCLA have done surveys that indicate 90% of those in the 'media elite' (i.e.>CBS, NBC, NYT, LAT, WashPost, TIME, NEWSWEEK, etc.) self ID themselves as "Democrat, Liberal, or Left-of-Center." Pew research touts itself as non-partisan and UCLA is one of the most Left-Wing campuses in the USA.
vince33x 1 month ago
@ekeyra Your last bit of dribble simply has no evidence to support it. You really are weak at this. Also, I've already dealt with this about 30 times now. For not being the fan of someone whom you know nothing about but pretend to, your grasp of the concept of argumentation is so lacking. You're funny.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
"Historians and other scholars have broadly confirmed Engels' description of communal management of shared resources. A summary of recent research concludes:
[W]hat existed in fact was not a "tragedy of the commons" but rather a triumph: that for hundreds of years -- and perhaps thousands, although written records do not exist to prove the longer era -- land was managed successfully by communities. (Cox 1985: 60)"
The "tragedy of the commons" myth has long been known to be a myth. Catch up
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
Of course, the difference between American state captalism and USSR state capitalism is a matter of degree, the USSR version post-Lenin having much more (greater of, higher magnitude etc.) of a crack down on autonomous freedoms, particulary when they concerned matters of direct and potential political concern contrary to the existence of Stalinism - you could probably eat whatever food you like or sing whatever songs you like for as long as it didn't threat the conduit of Stalinist capital.
stephenfs03 1 month ago
What does Chomsky thinks slavery is? He must have a peculiar sense of the word.
theyangist 1 month ago
@theyangist If he uses the word, he uses it correctly. If you're referring to his comments on wage slavery i.e.renting oneself out for another who profit from his labor, as already mentioned, he's simply repeating the rational, moral and logical sentiments of folks like Lincoln and the early Republican party (back when they were the Democrats) who had this as their parties platform that there should be no wage labor as it was only slightly better than chattel slavery, though less secure.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 I also find it extremely interesting that you justify chompsy's beliefs by repeating that abe lincoln believed it too. Didnt lincoln suspend habeas corpus and jail every journalist that dared to criticize his policies? I guess that was the logical, moral, and rational thing to do as well.
ekeyra 1 month ago
@ekeyra I'm "justifying" nothing. Earlier it was asserted that this notion was Chomsky's idea. I was simply providing data which showed that this was no new idea, and Chomsky simply happened to be referring to this as ONE example, not that it was even necessary. Is this all you've got? You second sentence is unrelated to the first, so I'm not sure what your point is. It has nothing to do with some folks recognizing the fact that working for wages i.e.renting yourself out was a milder slavery.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@ekeyra What's interesting, though slightly disgusting, is the fact that this is itselfcontrary to Libertarian principles. This is why those attempting to try and make apologetics for wage slavery are so hell bent on the "freedom to choose"(your master, the part they leave out) such an integral part. They do the same with "self-ownership", as if they really cared one iota about this. You need to look at what's behind these trivial and elementary ruses. It's REALLY not all that difficult.
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
@kropotkinbeard1 There's no such thing as a "rational sentiment." There are rational arguments, and there are rational explanations, but "rational sentiment" is empty verbiage. The same goes with "logical."
And wage labor is markedly better than slavery is, especially coercive slavery as it was practiced in the Antebellum U.S. Chomsky doesn't have a prayer of contesting to successful black entrepreneurs with a claim that "wage labor is only slightly better than slavery."
theyangist 1 month ago
@theyangist It should have read "natural sentiment". That being said, perhaps you can read 'An essay by William James The Sentiment Of Rationality'. There are more. Boring. I have an idea. Rather than try and argue about topics you know so little about, why not take off the next month and read up on a...
________________________________________________
Title: The Sentiment Of Rationality
Author: William James [More Titles by James]
THE SENTIMENT OF RATIONALITY.[1]
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago