I saw a big Marxism poster. 'Thoughts that rock the system'. I constantly see Marxist nonsense, environmental anti-human propaganda, and pro religious content posted around. I have not once seen anything on liberty or rationality or capitalism or libertarianism. I feel like I should put some up.
Ordinary Muslims don't kill people, only extremists do. Did you know that 60 Muslims were killed on 9/11. 60 Muslims who worked at the world trade centre. Out of 3000 people who were killed on 9/11, 60 were Muslim. So those fundamentalists killed Muslims to, not only Christians and none religious people.
For right-wing people, all Muslims and socialists ( and communists ) are evil.
My friend you are a highly delusional and misinformed individual. I do not know what you think "socialism" is but I live in France which is a democracy and considered by most of the world to be a socialist country and I can tell you we are not demons.
In fact we have free education and health insurance for every citizen, what do americans have? Oh yeah none of the above.... lucky bastards. Please stop watching fox news.
One more thing: no more videos on science, you're embarassing yourself.
lol what's up with the t-shirt and the suit jacket captain capitalism? too poor to afford a dress shirt and a tie? Texan National Socialism is the answer, seperationists unite
the socialism paper is yellwo so you were right to tear down the yellow socialist propaganda because yellow socialism is the old name for FASCISM and fascists should be shot. death to revisionaries
even a conservative person like this guy knows how silly and fake the Amerikan so-called socialists are. the so-called amerikan left is more like a fascist movement than real socialism.
Wow, so, you were posting offensive KKK bigotry on flyers, and found a flyer for people who advocate true equality and justice, and you freak out. Why are you frightened by justice? By those fighting racism and war?
You're truly a disgrace to this nation, claiming people should be ARRESTED for belief in economic justice and equality? Based upon WHAT? Do you not even get the notion of freedom of speech?
You aren't for freedom. You're an ememy of freedom.
Haven't studied history, have we? Haven't studied philosophy, have we?
Yes, there are two remarks within the video which are obviously contradictory (arrest the socialists and send anthrax to their headquarters), but he (Cropper) is obviously emotional about the situation. It was him (individual) vs. a group of screaming ignoramuses. He is obviously not promoting the arrests of socialists nor is he saying we should actually send anthrax to their offices.
@Soupflakez Actually I've studied history very, very well and more than a little philosophy. It sounds like HE is the only screaming ignoramus in the discussion, he is going around spreading viciously bigoted posters, and calling for the destruction of free speech to stop people from speaking about economic justice, and those who oppose him are "screaming ignoramuses"??
He obviously DID give the address and say "send anthrax," and people DID do so to some so it's not a joking matter.
You're obviously conflating what he meant. If you're going to accuse him of that, then you're equally guilty (as I) for uttering any vulgarity or angry, hate-filled rhetoric. Economic justice is an anti-conceptual package-deal, at least in the sense that you mean it. Are you the kind of socialist who thinks a doctor should earn as much as a janitor? Or, that the doctor should be enslaved by the janitor due to "exploitation"?
Socialism, empirically, logically, and morally, is a total and utter failure. When people claim they wish for the "greater good" by providing the poor with "adequate" shelter, food, and clothes, they blank out exactly who is going to provide all of those things. It's always an imprecise "somehow" that's stamped on any sort of logical gap in a socialist's political practicality.
@Soupflakez Horsecrap. There's no "moral failure" in economic justice and equality. There's nothing remotely moral about our system with a small number hoarding a massive percentage of our national wealth while millions go without the most basic needs and live in crushing, dehumanizing poverty. It's a lie to claim that anyone "blanks out" when asked for who provides, you're obviously talking to very poorly educated people and then thinking they represent ALL socialists.
@Soupflakez That's pathetic. I'm not "equally guilty" of anything, I've not invited people to murder those who believe in justice, whether jokingly or not it was a horrible thing to say and the video should be removed just for that sick comment. Anti-conceptual? What sort of double-talk is that? No, I do not believe ANYONE should be enslaved, but you better believe the janitor now IS enslaved by this screwed up system and yes, he SHOULD earn as much as the doctor.
If you think slavery is abhorrent, then how do you propose to get janitors to earn as much as doctors? If the janitor should earn as much as the doctor, then by what standard are we to assume that this is logically plausible? The doctor has to go through 4 years of undergraduate study, 4 years of medical school, and at least 2 years of residency; i.e., 10 years of school. How much school does the janitor have to go through, again?
@Soupflakez There's no reason a janitor can't, or shouldn't, go to college but looking down on them because they may not be as educated is the absolute height of immoral. And the idea that people CHOOSE to be less educated is pathetic, of course they are NOT, people are denied equal access to education by color, by background, and most of all by economic status. A person can't afford 10 years of college, so he deserves to be stuck in poverty forever? That's just wrong.
You bet I would look down on some piece of shit janitor who thinks he should earn as much as I would as a doctor. It's the epitome of mediocrity and hating the good because it's the good, which is immoral in the extreme. It's entirely irrational to say that a janitors profession, objectively, demonstrates and produces as much value as a doctors. There are doctors EVERYWHERE who started out with nothing, worked nights, went to school full-time, and made it.
@Soupflakez That you call a janitor a "piece of shit" shows that this truly is about greed and hate, if you ARE a doctor that doesn't make you any better than a janitor or any more deserving of the basic needs of life. YOU are hating the good...what's good is caring for others, there's nothing "good" in greed and in hoarding massive wealth for yourself.
There are NOT doctors everywhere who started with nothing and and "made it" all by themselves. Every single one of them benefitted from others
So you're saying that my struggle through undergraduate school, working at $10.61/hour, and buying a house is somehow benefiting from others? Sure, I can accept that, but only on the basis that those others benefit from me as well; i.e., that we engage in what's called "Trade." You see, this is your main problem: you view mankind as a pack of starving dimwits who crawl around on their bellies demanding that everything be shared "for the greater good."
And you're damn right I'll call (any) janitor(s) a piece of shit, but only the one's who think like you do: who demand that my (future) success be "shared" since hoarding what I've earned isn't a "right." I critiqued your concept of rights because your entire logical structure is superfluous and fallaciously organized. "Life" in the context of "Rights" is an axiomatic starting point; as such, any supposed "right" must also presuppose the axiom.
There can be no "right' to "basic needs" if those come at the expense of some other person's rights. Notice how you tactfully brushed aside my logical critique and called it "made up nonsense." Well, good for you. That still does not solve the dilemma I proposed. Say we have one person who needs a gallon of milk, and another who is willing to sell that milk, since the second person spent all day extracting it from a cow.
Now, we have a logical, yes LOGICAL, problem to overcome using your concept of "rights." If the first person (person A) has a supposed "right" to basic needs, then who is the second person (person B) to charge money for their effort? There can be no preliminary requirement (in this case: monetary exchange) if there is a right, correct?
Obviously there is absolutely no way to solve this issue until and unless you revise your concept of "rights." The only solution is trade; i.e., exchange to mutual benefit. Each person has a right to his/her own production, ergo they may exchange for what the objectively determined value of each other's production holds. Trade is completely consistent with the axiomatic concept I mentioned earlier: "Life."
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That is totally and completely inconsistent with the concept of "rights." From each according to his ability. How will this work? To each according to his needs. How will that work?--Take a look at Soviet Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea: brute force. You say you're against slavery? That's just a ridiculous pretense if you don't realize that that Marxist catchphrase means exactly that: slavery.
@Soupflakez Sick lies. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is NOT inconsistant AT ALL with the concept of rights. Your BS about hoarding wealth being a "right" is a LIE! Property isn't a right, human needs are a right. Marxism isn't slavery. Socialism isn't slavery. Your selfishness and lack of concern for other human beings is vomitous.
@Soupflakez Horsecrap. I am not the one needing to revise my concept of rights...YOU are. You view hoarding wealth not just as a right, but as the ONLY right. This shows why I've said repeatedly that capitalism is an illness, a disease. It's truly sick to think that hoarding wealth is a right but health care isn't. "Trade" is bullshit. It's people grabbing all they can for themselves, trying to screw others to make themselves better off, with no concern for society as a whole.
@Soupflakez It's not a problem at all. It's very simple--There is not a "supposed" "right" to basic needs. It's not a "right" it is a RIGHT, as basic as can be. Our children have a RIGHT to a decent education. People have a RIGHT to enough food to eat, to housing. You say "oh, we can't do that because it violates rich peoples' right to a 400,000 dollar house, they might have to settle for a 300,000 dollar house, the poor dears." That's not rights, that's selfishness.
If person A has a right to a gallon of milk (which is produced by person B), then who is person B to charge for it? If both person's A and B have a right to the gallon of milk, then who's right to it trumps the others right? Obviously there is a logical conundrum that must be addressed here; i.e., you must resolve a contradiction. The only way to solve it is this: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That is the criterion you're using.
Or, you could scrap your entire concept of rights and revise your ethics. It's up to you, and until you answer my inquiry as to how you would resolve that logical fallacy, this discussion is over. All I'm getting from you now is a screaming, vehemently hateful outburst in the form of rhetorical garbage. Also, my "apparent" lack of concern for other people is a superficial insult. Obviously you do not know me, so making that kind of accusation is totally unfounded.
@Soupflakez You still have a perverted view of "rights." Hoarding wealth is not a right. Profiting off the needs of others is not a right. It's a pathetic lie to claim standing up for the rights of ALL people is "hateful".
All right's presuppose an axiomatic concept: "Life." One may not claim that certain rights exist if those rights are an inherent detriment to their own presuppositions. Your concept of rights can be best described as a "stolen-concept." The first, and primary, right is the right to one's own life. If one has no right to their own life, then any corollary rights (or consequential rights) are impossible according to a simple process of logic.
@Soupflakez A person doesn't produce a gallon of milk--a cow does. God gave us ALL enough resources for every single person on the planet to meet their needs, we've blasphemed God's plan by allowing a few people to hoard all those resources for their own sick desires and profits instead of helping others.
There's MORE than enough milk for person A and person B, but person A decides to charge so much for it that person B and his family cannot afford it...and you don't care.
You have not solved the dilemma. A cow does not produce a gallon of milk anymore than a mine produces iron; or a forge produces steal. What produces (i.e., actively re-creates) is MAN. Say person B produces milk and person's C-Z make a claim since it is their right to the milk. If it is their right, then isn't person B producing without due compensation for his effort? Isn't he a SLAVE? Answer the question. If there is a right, then person B may not charge for his product, correct?
@Soupflakez So, a person "produces" something, so they get to hoard it all, prevent another person from having it, even if they're dying? Sick, sick, sick. You're enslaving people, when we work for the good of ALL, nobody is a slave. Your selfishness is truly vomitous. What you call "due compensation" is NOT due compensation, is NOT meeting the needs of the producer, it's massive wealth for a few, and NOTHING for millions. The worker who bottles the milk? Nothing. The clerk who puts it out? 0.
So the person who produces the gallon of milk is a selfish asshole if he wants a monetary rate of compensation? Doesn't this render your concept of rights superfluous, since the person producing the milk is an effectual slave? What would you do if everyone who did produce stopped working? By what criterion is it alright for others to consume, but not yourself? Aren't those others being selfish when they take what is produced by another?
@Soupflakez The SYSTEM is the problem, not that individual, if he's got millions while his neighbor is starving, if he's got workers being paid poverty wages then yeah, he's an asshole. No, he's not a "slave", if the only reason people "produce" is to have obscene wealth while others go hungry, mankind is doomed, not everyone is that selfish. Socialism's existed for centuries and people don't just stop working. SOME of us care about more than just getting rich.
In our current system, both the bottler and the clerk are payed; i.e., they sell their labor (although the current system is also deeply contorted by inner contradictory policies such as welfare). At any time they could choose to quit and--quite frankly--the more specialized the labor, the more valuable; hence, a bottler will be payed less than an engineer or veterinarian. It is only within your system that both those people will receive nothing for their effort.
@Soupflakez Bull. The CEO is paid, the clerk gets poverty wages and works in lousy conditions. There is NOTHING "contradictory" about welfare, although Clinton pretty much killed that, what a "liberal" he was (barf) Saying they can "choose to quit" shows how little respect for workers you have--work for whatever we'll pay you, in any conditions we force you into, or just have NO job.
They do NOT receive nothing, of course, they receive ALL they need, like the rest of us.
Answer my question. If it's evil to be selfish, then why is it good for others to consume what you produce?--Why is it good for others to be selfish, but not you? By your standard, do I not have a claim on what you produce at your job?
@Soupflakez There is no "if" about it--selfishness IS evil. Consuming isn't, but supporting a system under which a few have millions, while many go without the bare needs of life is as evil as it gets. You think this means NOBODY will buy anything, use anything, and that's crap, it means EVERYONE will be able to. That's the rub--they gave the rich all the breaks to help business, and now business is suffering terribly because too few can afford to buy.
Alright let's adopt your moral criterion (even though it's false) and logically evaluate it. Selfishness is evil, ergo production as such, or for profit is evil; however, this must subsume all acts that are for one's self-interest, since that is part of the definition of selfishness. Since that is true, it must also directly follow that to consume the products of others (let alone make a claim) is to be selfish (in a sort of pseudo-whimsical way).
@Soupflakez There's NOTHING false in the moral idea that poverty is an outrage in the wealthiest nation on the planet. You completely misrepresent what I said, and obviously have no interest in a logical discussion. All acts are NOT for one's self-interest, I pity you for that sick attitude.
It does not follow that selfishness is evil, ergo all have a claim check on the effort of others. For any person to make a claim, they must presuppose the fact that they are (in a contradictory way or otherwise) acting in the interest of their own lives; i.e., in their self-interest; i.e., selfishly. Even in the attempt at invalidating an axiomatic concept, you must make use of it. This is one of the fundamental flaws of socialism-communism: it contradicts itself.
@Soupflakez Yeah, selfishness IS evil. There's NOTHING good about wanting obscene luxury and wealth while millions go hungry. About Wal-Mart "maximizing profits" by busting unions and abusing workers. By giving millionaires tax cuts and paying for it by eliminating programs for the mentally ill. A person acting in their self-interest for SURVIVAL is not remotely the same, of course. You've shown no "flaw", just a basic lack of understanding, or attempting to...because of selfishness.
I'm getting really impatient with your attempts at derailing the argument. Stick to the logic. Does it follow that if selfishness is evil, yet consuming the products of others is good? It cannot, and the reason is epistemological-ethical. Of course it's harder to convey any meaning in these tiny text boxes. . .if you want to move this to private messaging, that's fine by me.
@Soupflakez You're playing sleazy word games and think I'm "derailing the argument"? How much more simple can it be made--selfishness is evil. There's no two ways about it. Our system where a few have massive wealth and millions go to bed hungry is IMMORAL. You're not trying to further a discussion, you're trying to set little traps, to play "gotcha." You're NOT going to get me to say that "free enterprise" and "capitalism" are so wonderful...because they're not.
I'm saying that it's impossible to say selfishness is evil (or more appropriately rational self-interest) and simultaneously support a system wherein it's alright for everyone but yourself to be selfish. I'm also saying it's a misnomer for you to say selfishness is evil, but consumption of unearned goods isn't since that wouldn't constitute "selfishness."--My question is, how? Aren't the consumers themselves acting in a selfish manner?
@Soupflakez It's not impossible, it's right. Selfishness IS evil. The system I'm supporting is NOT "allright for everyone but yourself to be selfish," that's an ASSININE description of what's being talked about. It is NOT selfish to take care of your needs and your families and your community's and your nations....to take care of EVERYONES' needs, not just yourself, is NOT selfish at all. Taking care of your needs by IGNORING those of others, then taking care of obscene luxury for yourself IS.
@Soupflakez It is FINE for you to benefit, but not to "benefit" to the tune of massive luxury while others starve. We have enough wealth among the three richest people, not hundreds but THREE, to provide the basic needs--education, health care, food, housing--of EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET. It is NOT allright for one person to have 53 billion dollars while millions have NOTHING, for 45,000 people to DIE without decent health care. Homeless is inexcusable.
@Soupflakez And they do NOT come at the expense of the "rights" of others. Hoarding wealth is NOT a right. Your "logical critique" WAS made up nonsense, it was completely fictionalizing what I've said and what I meant. Hoarding wealth is NOT a right. No, it does NOT violate ANYONE'S rights that we eliminate poverty by sharing the resources God gave ALL mankind, not to go to a few by to be shared by ALL.
@Soupflakez So, a janitor is a piece of shit if he thinks he's a human being of value, not a lower being. Great. That's truly pathetic. Does being poor make him a piece of shit? Or just doing a job that society arbitrarily views as unimportant?
One is reminded that it was "pieces of shit" like that the Martin Luther King was murdered fighting for. The dignity and value of EVERY HUMAN LIFE, not as determined by social status or wealth. A lesson obviously still badly needed to be listened to.
Also, if there is a right to all of these things (i.e., food, clothes, shelter), then where will these things come from? If you're against the concept of slavery, then surely you would be against the concept of people making a claim on your production, correct? If there is a right, then that means one may not infringe upon that right; however, if one asks for compensation and the person making the claim cannot pay, then isn't their "right' being infringed upon?
@Soupflakez Where will they come from? You cannot be this delusional. There are more than enough resources for the needs of EVERY person on the planet. The idea that there's not enough is preposterous. The problem is we allow a few to hoard massive amounts while millions do without the most basic needs, and that is NOT their "right." It is NOT infringing on anyone's rights to more equitably share the resources God gave us ALL.
Your concept of rights, logically, produces an infinite regress; i.e., a never-ending chain of consequences produced by a fallacious, circularly oriented argument. That, and your concept of rights is a "stolen-concept." Rights presuppose an axiom: "Life." If one has no right to their life, then any subsequent rights are impossible; as such, claiming that there is a "right" to clothing is saying there is a right to some people's life, time, and energy.
However, one cannot have a right to clothes if they don't have a right to "Life"; and surely you aren't going to tell me that only some people have rights while others don't; because surely a socialist would want it to be fair and universal. You arguments are logically inconsistent and incompatible with the concept of "Rights." Your argument is akin to saying, "Existence doesn't exist." First you must presuppose the axiom that you're (implicitly) denying.
@Soupflakez Absolute double-talk. You can't refute the points, so you just make up out of the clear blue sky a fictional depiction of what's being said. You've shown no "logical inconsistancy", just made one up.
Socialism is morally abhorrent because it destroys the concept of private property, consequently the concept of individual rights. If someone has no right to produce (i.e., to own their own business), then they have no right to control their own life, literally. If they have no right to control their own life, then do they have their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
@Soupflakez There's nothing "moral" about private property. That's not a moral. Caring about others is moral, hoarding for yourself isn't. Individual rights? Hoarding stuff isn't rights. Keeping others in poverty isn't a "right".
You've got a perverse idea of morality. A system that causes millions to suffer in poverty while a few hoard it all is "moral", the idea that we all SHARE the resources of the world is "immoral"? That's twisted.
Individual rights is not the same as "hoarding," and even still hoarding is entirely rational and moral if a person has earned what he/her is hoarding. The second part of your reply is a description of socialism-communism, not capitalism. You think people in the United States suffer? Take a hard look at Soviet Russia. Too extreme? Cube. North Korea. China. The soft socialist states of Europe are crumbling under massive deficits.
@Soupflakez Hoarding is NOT a right. You call it a "right" it is NOT. Individual rights are NOT the right to grab up massive wealth while others starve. This is the problem, the radical right thinks the ONLY rights are non-existant "property rights". That's not a right.
And Cuba suffers because of the despicable illegal blockade by the United States, And STILL they have a lower infant mortality rate and 100% literacy. The "socialist" states in Europe troubled because of RIGHT WING governments
He's just pissed off, and rightfully so. We all say crap that we don't mean when we're emotional; especially if we're so emotional we cannot gather our thoughts and convey them in any coherent, intelligible manner.
so lets get this straight, you walk around posting up flyers that offend people who hold a certain set of religious beleifs, for no reason, (im athiest so yeah), and you say the horror story is the flier you found? im not socialist, nor do i support socialism, but everything you read of that flier were things i agree with, they are just misguided. so, which flier is really the offense i ask? maybe you need to do a little more thinking.
Capitalism, in practice, leads to the removal of choice and free will for all but the elite, who are able to truly capitalize from that economic system.
The "free market" is only free for the elite. You see this time and time again: economic invasion by corporations and foreign powers who steal and plunder to make a quick profit.
Look at the history of the world, and realize the folly of capitalism.
This is horrible. So you'll attack people advocating universal rights to food, clothes, and shelter, yet you leave fat ass limp dick corporate fiends at fast food companies and food additive manufactures untouched? Disgusting.
There's a difference between personal property and private property.
And it'd do you well to bother with something other than stale talking points from the 1950s.
You don't realize how selfish you're behaving. Nothing of yours in jeopardy. People around the world have been abused in ways you can't imagine because of capitalism's never-ending march of expansion. All of the cheap stuff you worship is the result of exploitation. Your home might as well be soaked in blood.
Umm I was born in a thirld world country, how about you?
The reason I advocate objectivism is exactly because I have seen suffering. Most people who advocate socialism never trully have. I've seen hundreds of starving children at an airport in the city where I was born (Moscow)
To say that capitalism is responsible for poverty is one of the most historically ignorant things ever.
You think people weren't dying of starvation BEFORE capitalism?
Capitalism *is* responsible for poverty. All of the so-called prosperity it creates comes at a cost. Look at Haiti, look at the Caribbean, look at Africa. Capitalists support the corrupt regimes that rule those countries as long as they let their corporations operate within. Free trade laws and deregulation bleed nations dry and turn them into nothing more than export-heavy shitholes that rely on what is essentially slave labor to generate wealth for others.
Capitalism isn't about morality, it's about profit. Haiti was in poverty because after their independence was won, the French made them nation pay "reparations" for years.
The US' involvement with Haiti is even more disgusting than France trying to jack money from former slaves. The Us invaded Haiti and to give their bank away to Citibank in 1911. the country has been plagued by the scourge of capitalism and unbridled greed.
No, capitalism isn't just about profit. It's about every individual's right to their property, which an essential right for other liberties as well.
If you have a right to take my property it is the same as being able to kill me. I cannot live without my posessions. If you take my house and my land, I can't grow food and Im dead.
Without the right to property and the profit of our work we are slaves.
You damn the very word "profit" as if it were shameful to be rewarded for work
Capitalism is about gaining wealth. When it comes down to it, capitalists will stomp on the rights to property of other people as they wish. They conspire to take away indigenous land, fuck, they take over entire countries, all in the name of higher profit margins. You refuse to recognize this, and the corporate-owned media won't recognize this. Everything and everyone is corrupted by greed to some degree in the US.
Capitalism means private ownership, which implies people's inaliable individual rights.
If people intrude on other's individual rights, they are not capitalists.
FREE market, means no force, coersion or fraud. If any of those things exist, then the market is not free. The government's proper job is to ensure that people don't violate other's individual rights in a true Capitalist economy.
Haiti is incapable of having wealth. It has a tyranical government and their people don't know how to organize or produce anything.
To blame other countries for their problems is like blaming me for somebody else's house being messy.
America certainly had other countries try to take advantage of us in the past, and so did other prosperous nations. It didn't keep us from gaining wealth, so the argument fails.
If you came into my house and took a shit on my coffee table, I'd have no choice but to call you out.
You're ignoring the history behind Haiti's plight, and the plight of workers the world over. You're ignoring one of the most egregious examples of corporate greed and malfeasance in human history because it doesn't jive with the silly platitudes of your Capitalist religion. America has NEVER faced anything like Haiti has, or any other 3rd world nation. Saying otherwise is a lie.
It had tons of natural resources, and arable land-they could have been making billions from agriculture exports, but the forests are gone, and everyone is living the cities because the sweatshop slave camps are the only source of income left. Corporate-backed policies by the IMF and the aforementioned fuckery by the French and US led to crushing debt with even more crushing prohibitions on how the state could spend what little money it had-so no infrastructure.
Who said anything about seizure? Socialism and socialists aren't as dogmatic as you'd like to believe.
and it's not my fault that you're incapable of comprehending the difference between the two; or rather, that you don't believe that there's a distinction at all.
No man is an island. As much as you might hate to admit it, you haven't accomplished anything in your life without the help of others to some degree. It's our responsibility as human beings to cooperate with each other. That's how our species progressed-we spent less time devouring each other and more time collaborating.
You stated that you were defending "free speech"...ok maybe you consider spreading discrimination and stereotypes free speech, fine...but why did you advocate for taking down socialist flyers, crashing socialist meetings, and mailing the socialist party usa anthrax? That's stopping free speech...right? Isn't using violence to stop freedom of speech exactly what you were criticizing the "Muslims" for doing? I hope you know that you're a hypocrite and a bigot.
You sound like some kind of fascist ARREST people because they want social justiice and have founded a movement to fight for it. Whats all the shock horror about why is the word AMERICAN supposed to be antithetical to socialism, anti racism, workers rights etc?
To me you really sound like a bigot. You think people are ignorant because they believe in something more than corporate greed and moronic nationalist narrow mindedness.
YOU have the right to free speech but THEY should be arrested!
I'm glad someone finally realizes that we have a problem on campus. Then again most people are too apathetic to care about the lies being spread around by these ideologues.
I know, it's baffaling that your dogmatic views aren't accepted by more than a tiny minority of your fellow students. They must all be idiots because your objectivist credo is undeniably The Truth.
Mr Cropper have you encountered Socinus and his question on Youtube to Capitalist defenders. I mistakenly tried argue with him and asked him to refute the argument made in Atlas Shrugged as the best case ever made against Socialism. I also attempted to outline my experiences of the Soviet Union and Socialism in Britain growing up in Socialist housing. These apparently count for nothing in his vast experience! Is it possible to reason with Socialists? Check out Socinus if you dare!
Ha ha ha!!! Me and my friends crashed a "Progressive" meeting, a few months ago. That was horrific. Those people are hateful and crazy, and they don't even realize it. :o
For some reason, "the right to choose" is more important to these people than the 1st, 4th & 13th Amendments combined. =\
I think Colleges are pretty much Socialist indoctrination centers. High-schools, too.
Recommended Book: 'The Road To Serfdom' by F.A. Hayek
So much hatred and anger, So little intelligence. Lets consider some socialist countries, France, Britain, Germany, Most Scandinavian countries. Basically all the countries with the highest standard of living on earth.
So Muslims wear turbans do they? I thought that was Sikhs. Are Sikhs responsible for terrorism then? You are making ridiculous generalisations about people.
I thought the SP-USA's programme sounded very sensible, reasonable and an improvement on the mess we are in at the moment. What was their address again?
Obviously the artist meant to satirise Muslims in the wake of 9/11 - but he should at least do some basic research first. Only a tiny minority of people are terrorists. Socialists are opposed to terrorism, but it is completely inaccurate and a massively sweeping generalisation to brand everyone wearing a turban, or every Muslim a terrorist. That is why the cartoons transgress the limits of free speech - they are inciting racial hatred.
lol while both me and Cropper clearly dislike socialism, I got the feeling that the comment on arresting socialists was an exaggaration meant in jehst. From what Ive seen of Cropper i get the feeling these actions are more out of objectivist rationality than US allegiance. However, states labelling themselves under the banner of socialism dont have the best record for not killing people. the hipocrisy argument is an 'ad hominem tu quoque' fallacy anyway, but i do get where youre coming from..
Well I don't. He words are so much tired rhetoric. Look at teh Amerikkkan evir!11 Why? Is America some adversary to socialism? Historically yes, in modern practice no. Has socialism helped anyone? No. What does it do? It creates the ultimate aristocracy that has complete legal right to your life.
This guy is very ignorant , absoloutly no back up to his opinions. Why is socialism bad? Whos killing who ? Muslim fanatics or US marines? Just a typical American Brainwashed fascist
The muhammed cartoon issue was not directly related to the iraq war, but to muslim fanaticism. who's killing who? danish cartoonists or muslim fanatics firebombing their embassy? And you think we should slink away and advocate that kind of behaviour from violent terrorists? Posting the muhammed image was in defiance of that, an adovcation of personal freedom. Something which, incidentally, cannot exist in a socialist society. Study objectivism, his opinion is fully objectively backed up there
The muslim cartoon was based on the Bombings in around Europe. Britain is being bombed because we are occupying Iraq. Its simple , the reason we are being attacked is because we are attacking!
personal freedom can't exist in a socialist society? how bout you read a book. I hear your gods , Hitler and mussolini didnt give to much liberty to there people! Your the type that would want to pass the 42 day detention act, so dont give me shit about freedom.
britain was bombed because of the wide permeation of islamic fanaticism in modern britain, and the non negotiable fundamentalist violence that comes with it.
So far you have made no actual points, merely thrown around wild accusations about me being a nazi, condoned terrorism and fundamentalist intolerance, created a false dichotomy between socialism and fascism,raising no actual points. youre an insult to the 7/7 victims, grow up you sad uneducated archetypal whiney abstracted communist moron.
oh and am i to understand that you therefore see any mockery of islamic fundamentalist terrorism unjustified, even after the horrific events caused by such terrorism, simply because of the iraqi occupation. I was not in favour of that war, but that in no way makes terrorism beyond reproach or mockery. ultimately they had the right to make that cartoon and we have the right to display it wherever we wish. They have NO right to kill us over the trivialisation of an illiterate goatherder prophet.
Why havnt we been bombed by these fundamentalists pre-the iraq war? The injustices in Iraq have turned these muslims to radical Islam. How can you deny this?
I see your point on the cartoon. The muslims simply can't act like this is western liberal democracy. But
Concerning your point on Iraq i admit Iraq may have been catalytic, but when taking in to account the history of the political spread of islam, the nature of shariah law, and the open admission by the terrorists of their rationalisation for these actions, it would frankly be glib to simply label iraq as the root cause of this. it is the nature of intolerant fanaticism that has permeated middle eastern islamic theocracy for over a millenium, that led to modern terrorism.
Correction: we are being attacked, like all other adversaries of Islamic Fascism, because we're resisting.
Has personal freedom ever existed in a socialist society? The Socialist evicts rights to speech, property and capital so by what means can any human subject to socialism express their "freedom"? How can they obtain it if they have no power whatsoever to influence their society?
Our Gods, Hitler and Mussolini? Both were Fascists. Neither were capitalist in any fashion if that is what you meant to imply. Fascism is a direct parallel to socialism. Hayek wasn't the first to suggest that Fascism is simply the end result of socialism. As we can see the only difference between German Socialists and German Fascists were the avenues for their pet projects and the flags they rallied under.
You are pretty funny! First you complain that your fliers were torn down all, but you feel justified in tearing all the socialist's fliers. You think socialists should be arrested? Have you ever heard of the 1st Amendment? Where does it say in the Constitution that the U.S. should be exclusively capitalist?
obviously someone has issues. You know you tell the person to the freedom to think. claiming that he like his ideas are wrong and that he lacks intelectual credibility and yet you use name calling. how intellectual do you think that makes you look? calling people fucking idiots and calling for thier arrests only makes you look nazist. after all dont you support free speech and diversity? or is diversity only skin deep?
Lots of socialist comments, but no reason or logic... just slogans and invective. Luka came closest to giving an argument, so for there's at least hope... he at least does the service of trying to reason.
But the overproduction argument doesn't hold up... The Malthus-Sismondi overproduction argument has been refuted many times. Frankly, it's equivalent to arguing that socialism cannot produce as well as capitalism, and then ignoring the role of relative prices in allocation.
The US is still largely a market economy, but look at the sector where govt has interfered most: health care. Since mid-1960s the federal govt has been #1 purchaser in health care markets, and has increased its regulation and price fixing since. The spiraling health care costs and breakdown of insurance stem from this.
When we get "universal" health care our out of pocket costs might fall, but we'll also get rationing, skyrocketing taxes & deficits, and poorer quality. Socialism stinks.
Advocates of socialism have no understanding at all of the role of the price system. There's no method other than market prices for rationally allocating resources and coordinating society.
Government command and control isn't a substitute; it simply disrupts the market process and makes people poorer and less free.
Going "to the economy school" isn't the same as understanding the price system. Read Hayek's 1945 A.E.R. article "The Use of Knowledge in Society" for a start. Steven Landsburg's text "Price Theory" has a nice chapetr on information that is also worth a look. Von Mises classic critique of socialism, "Economic Calculation is the Socialist Commonwealth" is good, even better his full dissection in "Human Action," which is lengthy but worthwhile. Read these Luka, and you'll join my position.
You who think "socialism works" have no idea what you are talking about; it has failed everywhere it has been tried.
If it works so well, why is S. Korea wealthy, N. Korea dirt poor? Why was W. Germany economically successful & E. Germany not? Why China an economic disaster until Deng Xiaoping adopted market reforms?
If your view of socialism were correct, Cuba would be wealthy and the U.S. poor, rather than vice versa. Get with it.
Socialism... in America?!! AHHHHHHHH!!!!! The fear that lodges in my heart at the thought of equitable wages makes me shiver. O my God!!! The thought of not having to pay $300 a month for health care is making me shit my pants!
how are any of the things you had read off of that flier taken negatively? ARRESTED for posting a flier!?!?
kurtisluebke 7 months ago
I saw a big Marxism poster. 'Thoughts that rock the system'. I constantly see Marxist nonsense, environmental anti-human propaganda, and pro religious content posted around. I have not once seen anything on liberty or rationality or capitalism or libertarianism. I feel like I should put some up.
Esoparagon 8 months ago
I am a socialist and I think you are a little unhinged.
sewbuttns 9 months ago
Ordinary Muslims don't kill people, only extremists do. Did you know that 60 Muslims were killed on 9/11. 60 Muslims who worked at the world trade centre. Out of 3000 people who were killed on 9/11, 60 were Muslim. So those fundamentalists killed Muslims to, not only Christians and none religious people.
For right-wing people, all Muslims and socialists ( and communists ) are evil.
UDSS 11 months ago
My friend you are a highly delusional and misinformed individual. I do not know what you think "socialism" is but I live in France which is a democracy and considered by most of the world to be a socialist country and I can tell you we are not demons.
In fact we have free education and health insurance for every citizen, what do americans have? Oh yeah none of the above.... lucky bastards. Please stop watching fox news.
One more thing: no more videos on science, you're embarassing yourself.
tautologicalnickname 1 year ago
ignorance sometimes = me laughing so hard im crying. ............this is one of those times
goreguts666 1 year ago
lol what's up with the t-shirt and the suit jacket captain capitalism? too poor to afford a dress shirt and a tie? Texan National Socialism is the answer, seperationists unite
momforce666 1 year ago
the socialism paper is yellwo so you were right to tear down the yellow socialist propaganda because yellow socialism is the old name for FASCISM and fascists should be shot. death to revisionaries
afaultytoaster 1 year ago
you a little offended by socialism?
jasminoils 1 year ago
why does this man crave attention?
KozmoJ68 1 year ago
This evokes a feeling akin to that which I get from religious folk.
wallyb77 1 year ago
I put up fliers like that.
ww1313 1 year ago 11
you're a joke.
rafrafc 1 year ago 15
even a conservative person like this guy knows how silly and fake the Amerikan so-called socialists are. the so-called amerikan left is more like a fascist movement than real socialism.
FrequencyLiberation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You shouldn't have taken the 1 poster.
She was shouting obscenities, and you were putting up offensive posters.
Why are only opposed to Muslims that kill people?
IanLittle123 1 year ago
You shouldn't have taken the 1 poster.
She was shouting obscenities, and you were putting up offensive posters.
Why are only opposed to Muslims that kill people?
IanLittle123 1 year ago
This is an act, right? Or are you truly schizophrenic?
FrankieWeinert 1 year ago
Wait... so are you a fascist? You definitely sound like one.
(p.s. it seems like other people are asking this too..)
VXEuanAttack 1 year ago
Wow, so, you were posting offensive KKK bigotry on flyers, and found a flyer for people who advocate true equality and justice, and you freak out. Why are you frightened by justice? By those fighting racism and war?
You're truly a disgrace to this nation, claiming people should be ARRESTED for belief in economic justice and equality? Based upon WHAT? Do you not even get the notion of freedom of speech?
You aren't for freedom. You're an ememy of freedom.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Haven't studied history, have we? Haven't studied philosophy, have we?
Yes, there are two remarks within the video which are obviously contradictory (arrest the socialists and send anthrax to their headquarters), but he (Cropper) is obviously emotional about the situation. It was him (individual) vs. a group of screaming ignoramuses. He is obviously not promoting the arrests of socialists nor is he saying we should actually send anthrax to their offices.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez Actually I've studied history very, very well and more than a little philosophy. It sounds like HE is the only screaming ignoramus in the discussion, he is going around spreading viciously bigoted posters, and calling for the destruction of free speech to stop people from speaking about economic justice, and those who oppose him are "screaming ignoramuses"??
He obviously DID give the address and say "send anthrax," and people DID do so to some so it's not a joking matter.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
You're obviously conflating what he meant. If you're going to accuse him of that, then you're equally guilty (as I) for uttering any vulgarity or angry, hate-filled rhetoric. Economic justice is an anti-conceptual package-deal, at least in the sense that you mean it. Are you the kind of socialist who thinks a doctor should earn as much as a janitor? Or, that the doctor should be enslaved by the janitor due to "exploitation"?
Soupflakez 1 year ago
Socialism, empirically, logically, and morally, is a total and utter failure. When people claim they wish for the "greater good" by providing the poor with "adequate" shelter, food, and clothes, they blank out exactly who is going to provide all of those things. It's always an imprecise "somehow" that's stamped on any sort of logical gap in a socialist's political practicality.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez Horsecrap. There's no "moral failure" in economic justice and equality. There's nothing remotely moral about our system with a small number hoarding a massive percentage of our national wealth while millions go without the most basic needs and live in crushing, dehumanizing poverty. It's a lie to claim that anyone "blanks out" when asked for who provides, you're obviously talking to very poorly educated people and then thinking they represent ALL socialists.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@Soupflakez That's pathetic. I'm not "equally guilty" of anything, I've not invited people to murder those who believe in justice, whether jokingly or not it was a horrible thing to say and the video should be removed just for that sick comment. Anti-conceptual? What sort of double-talk is that? No, I do not believe ANYONE should be enslaved, but you better believe the janitor now IS enslaved by this screwed up system and yes, he SHOULD earn as much as the doctor.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
If you think slavery is abhorrent, then how do you propose to get janitors to earn as much as doctors? If the janitor should earn as much as the doctor, then by what standard are we to assume that this is logically plausible? The doctor has to go through 4 years of undergraduate study, 4 years of medical school, and at least 2 years of residency; i.e., 10 years of school. How much school does the janitor have to go through, again?
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez There's no reason a janitor can't, or shouldn't, go to college but looking down on them because they may not be as educated is the absolute height of immoral. And the idea that people CHOOSE to be less educated is pathetic, of course they are NOT, people are denied equal access to education by color, by background, and most of all by economic status. A person can't afford 10 years of college, so he deserves to be stuck in poverty forever? That's just wrong.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
You bet I would look down on some piece of shit janitor who thinks he should earn as much as I would as a doctor. It's the epitome of mediocrity and hating the good because it's the good, which is immoral in the extreme. It's entirely irrational to say that a janitors profession, objectively, demonstrates and produces as much value as a doctors. There are doctors EVERYWHERE who started out with nothing, worked nights, went to school full-time, and made it.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez That you call a janitor a "piece of shit" shows that this truly is about greed and hate, if you ARE a doctor that doesn't make you any better than a janitor or any more deserving of the basic needs of life. YOU are hating the good...what's good is caring for others, there's nothing "good" in greed and in hoarding massive wealth for yourself.
There are NOT doctors everywhere who started with nothing and and "made it" all by themselves. Every single one of them benefitted from others
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
So you're saying that my struggle through undergraduate school, working at $10.61/hour, and buying a house is somehow benefiting from others? Sure, I can accept that, but only on the basis that those others benefit from me as well; i.e., that we engage in what's called "Trade." You see, this is your main problem: you view mankind as a pack of starving dimwits who crawl around on their bellies demanding that everything be shared "for the greater good."
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
And you're damn right I'll call (any) janitor(s) a piece of shit, but only the one's who think like you do: who demand that my (future) success be "shared" since hoarding what I've earned isn't a "right." I critiqued your concept of rights because your entire logical structure is superfluous and fallaciously organized. "Life" in the context of "Rights" is an axiomatic starting point; as such, any supposed "right" must also presuppose the axiom.
Continued. . .
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez
Continued. . .
There can be no "right' to "basic needs" if those come at the expense of some other person's rights. Notice how you tactfully brushed aside my logical critique and called it "made up nonsense." Well, good for you. That still does not solve the dilemma I proposed. Say we have one person who needs a gallon of milk, and another who is willing to sell that milk, since the second person spent all day extracting it from a cow.
Continued (2). . .
Soupflakez 1 year ago
Now, we have a logical, yes LOGICAL, problem to overcome using your concept of "rights." If the first person (person A) has a supposed "right" to basic needs, then who is the second person (person B) to charge money for their effort? There can be no preliminary requirement (in this case: monetary exchange) if there is a right, correct?
Continued (3). . .
Soupflakez 1 year ago
Continued (3). . .
Obviously there is absolutely no way to solve this issue until and unless you revise your concept of "rights." The only solution is trade; i.e., exchange to mutual benefit. Each person has a right to his/her own production, ergo they may exchange for what the objectively determined value of each other's production holds. Trade is completely consistent with the axiomatic concept I mentioned earlier: "Life."
Continued (4). . .
Soupflakez 1 year ago
Continued (4). . .
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." That is totally and completely inconsistent with the concept of "rights." From each according to his ability. How will this work? To each according to his needs. How will that work?--Take a look at Soviet Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea: brute force. You say you're against slavery? That's just a ridiculous pretense if you don't realize that that Marxist catchphrase means exactly that: slavery.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez Sick lies. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs is NOT inconsistant AT ALL with the concept of rights. Your BS about hoarding wealth being a "right" is a LIE! Property isn't a right, human needs are a right. Marxism isn't slavery. Socialism isn't slavery. Your selfishness and lack of concern for other human beings is vomitous.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@Soupflakez Horsecrap. I am not the one needing to revise my concept of rights...YOU are. You view hoarding wealth not just as a right, but as the ONLY right. This shows why I've said repeatedly that capitalism is an illness, a disease. It's truly sick to think that hoarding wealth is a right but health care isn't. "Trade" is bullshit. It's people grabbing all they can for themselves, trying to screw others to make themselves better off, with no concern for society as a whole.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@Soupflakez It's not a problem at all. It's very simple--There is not a "supposed" "right" to basic needs. It's not a "right" it is a RIGHT, as basic as can be. Our children have a RIGHT to a decent education. People have a RIGHT to enough food to eat, to housing. You say "oh, we can't do that because it violates rich peoples' right to a 400,000 dollar house, they might have to settle for a 300,000 dollar house, the poor dears." That's not rights, that's selfishness.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
If person A has a right to a gallon of milk (which is produced by person B), then who is person B to charge for it? If both person's A and B have a right to the gallon of milk, then who's right to it trumps the others right? Obviously there is a logical conundrum that must be addressed here; i.e., you must resolve a contradiction. The only way to solve it is this: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That is the criterion you're using.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
Or, you could scrap your entire concept of rights and revise your ethics. It's up to you, and until you answer my inquiry as to how you would resolve that logical fallacy, this discussion is over. All I'm getting from you now is a screaming, vehemently hateful outburst in the form of rhetorical garbage. Also, my "apparent" lack of concern for other people is a superficial insult. Obviously you do not know me, so making that kind of accusation is totally unfounded.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez You still have a perverted view of "rights." Hoarding wealth is not a right. Profiting off the needs of others is not a right. It's a pathetic lie to claim standing up for the rights of ALL people is "hateful".
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
All right's presuppose an axiomatic concept: "Life." One may not claim that certain rights exist if those rights are an inherent detriment to their own presuppositions. Your concept of rights can be best described as a "stolen-concept." The first, and primary, right is the right to one's own life. If one has no right to their own life, then any corollary rights (or consequential rights) are impossible according to a simple process of logic.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez A person doesn't produce a gallon of milk--a cow does. God gave us ALL enough resources for every single person on the planet to meet their needs, we've blasphemed God's plan by allowing a few people to hoard all those resources for their own sick desires and profits instead of helping others.
There's MORE than enough milk for person A and person B, but person A decides to charge so much for it that person B and his family cannot afford it...and you don't care.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
You have not solved the dilemma. A cow does not produce a gallon of milk anymore than a mine produces iron; or a forge produces steal. What produces (i.e., actively re-creates) is MAN. Say person B produces milk and person's C-Z make a claim since it is their right to the milk. If it is their right, then isn't person B producing without due compensation for his effort? Isn't he a SLAVE? Answer the question. If there is a right, then person B may not charge for his product, correct?
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez So, a person "produces" something, so they get to hoard it all, prevent another person from having it, even if they're dying? Sick, sick, sick. You're enslaving people, when we work for the good of ALL, nobody is a slave. Your selfishness is truly vomitous. What you call "due compensation" is NOT due compensation, is NOT meeting the needs of the producer, it's massive wealth for a few, and NOTHING for millions. The worker who bottles the milk? Nothing. The clerk who puts it out? 0.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
So the person who produces the gallon of milk is a selfish asshole if he wants a monetary rate of compensation? Doesn't this render your concept of rights superfluous, since the person producing the milk is an effectual slave? What would you do if everyone who did produce stopped working? By what criterion is it alright for others to consume, but not yourself? Aren't those others being selfish when they take what is produced by another?
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez The SYSTEM is the problem, not that individual, if he's got millions while his neighbor is starving, if he's got workers being paid poverty wages then yeah, he's an asshole. No, he's not a "slave", if the only reason people "produce" is to have obscene wealth while others go hungry, mankind is doomed, not everyone is that selfish. Socialism's existed for centuries and people don't just stop working. SOME of us care about more than just getting rich.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
In our current system, both the bottler and the clerk are payed; i.e., they sell their labor (although the current system is also deeply contorted by inner contradictory policies such as welfare). At any time they could choose to quit and--quite frankly--the more specialized the labor, the more valuable; hence, a bottler will be payed less than an engineer or veterinarian. It is only within your system that both those people will receive nothing for their effort.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez Bull. The CEO is paid, the clerk gets poverty wages and works in lousy conditions. There is NOTHING "contradictory" about welfare, although Clinton pretty much killed that, what a "liberal" he was (barf) Saying they can "choose to quit" shows how little respect for workers you have--work for whatever we'll pay you, in any conditions we force you into, or just have NO job.
They do NOT receive nothing, of course, they receive ALL they need, like the rest of us.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Answer my question. If it's evil to be selfish, then why is it good for others to consume what you produce?--Why is it good for others to be selfish, but not you? By your standard, do I not have a claim on what you produce at your job?
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez There is no "if" about it--selfishness IS evil. Consuming isn't, but supporting a system under which a few have millions, while many go without the bare needs of life is as evil as it gets. You think this means NOBODY will buy anything, use anything, and that's crap, it means EVERYONE will be able to. That's the rub--they gave the rich all the breaks to help business, and now business is suffering terribly because too few can afford to buy.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Alright let's adopt your moral criterion (even though it's false) and logically evaluate it. Selfishness is evil, ergo production as such, or for profit is evil; however, this must subsume all acts that are for one's self-interest, since that is part of the definition of selfishness. Since that is true, it must also directly follow that to consume the products of others (let alone make a claim) is to be selfish (in a sort of pseudo-whimsical way).
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez There's NOTHING false in the moral idea that poverty is an outrage in the wealthiest nation on the planet. You completely misrepresent what I said, and obviously have no interest in a logical discussion. All acts are NOT for one's self-interest, I pity you for that sick attitude.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
It does not follow that selfishness is evil, ergo all have a claim check on the effort of others. For any person to make a claim, they must presuppose the fact that they are (in a contradictory way or otherwise) acting in the interest of their own lives; i.e., in their self-interest; i.e., selfishly. Even in the attempt at invalidating an axiomatic concept, you must make use of it. This is one of the fundamental flaws of socialism-communism: it contradicts itself.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez Yeah, selfishness IS evil. There's NOTHING good about wanting obscene luxury and wealth while millions go hungry. About Wal-Mart "maximizing profits" by busting unions and abusing workers. By giving millionaires tax cuts and paying for it by eliminating programs for the mentally ill. A person acting in their self-interest for SURVIVAL is not remotely the same, of course. You've shown no "flaw", just a basic lack of understanding, or attempting to...because of selfishness.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
I'm getting really impatient with your attempts at derailing the argument. Stick to the logic. Does it follow that if selfishness is evil, yet consuming the products of others is good? It cannot, and the reason is epistemological-ethical. Of course it's harder to convey any meaning in these tiny text boxes. . .if you want to move this to private messaging, that's fine by me.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez You're playing sleazy word games and think I'm "derailing the argument"? How much more simple can it be made--selfishness is evil. There's no two ways about it. Our system where a few have massive wealth and millions go to bed hungry is IMMORAL. You're not trying to further a discussion, you're trying to set little traps, to play "gotcha." You're NOT going to get me to say that "free enterprise" and "capitalism" are so wonderful...because they're not.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
I'm saying that it's impossible to say selfishness is evil (or more appropriately rational self-interest) and simultaneously support a system wherein it's alright for everyone but yourself to be selfish. I'm also saying it's a misnomer for you to say selfishness is evil, but consumption of unearned goods isn't since that wouldn't constitute "selfishness."--My question is, how? Aren't the consumers themselves acting in a selfish manner?
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez It's not impossible, it's right. Selfishness IS evil. The system I'm supporting is NOT "allright for everyone but yourself to be selfish," that's an ASSININE description of what's being talked about. It is NOT selfish to take care of your needs and your families and your community's and your nations....to take care of EVERYONES' needs, not just yourself, is NOT selfish at all. Taking care of your needs by IGNORING those of others, then taking care of obscene luxury for yourself IS.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Why is it alright for those others to benefit from your effort, but not you?
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez It is FINE for you to benefit, but not to "benefit" to the tune of massive luxury while others starve. We have enough wealth among the three richest people, not hundreds but THREE, to provide the basic needs--education, health care, food, housing--of EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET. It is NOT allright for one person to have 53 billion dollars while millions have NOTHING, for 45,000 people to DIE without decent health care. Homeless is inexcusable.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
So it's fine for someone to benefit from their own production, but only to a certain point?
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez And they do NOT come at the expense of the "rights" of others. Hoarding wealth is NOT a right. Your "logical critique" WAS made up nonsense, it was completely fictionalizing what I've said and what I meant. Hoarding wealth is NOT a right. No, it does NOT violate ANYONE'S rights that we eliminate poverty by sharing the resources God gave ALL mankind, not to go to a few by to be shared by ALL.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@Soupflakez So, a janitor is a piece of shit if he thinks he's a human being of value, not a lower being. Great. That's truly pathetic. Does being poor make him a piece of shit? Or just doing a job that society arbitrarily views as unimportant?
One is reminded that it was "pieces of shit" like that the Martin Luther King was murdered fighting for. The dignity and value of EVERY HUMAN LIFE, not as determined by social status or wealth. A lesson obviously still badly needed to be listened to.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Also, if there is a right to all of these things (i.e., food, clothes, shelter), then where will these things come from? If you're against the concept of slavery, then surely you would be against the concept of people making a claim on your production, correct? If there is a right, then that means one may not infringe upon that right; however, if one asks for compensation and the person making the claim cannot pay, then isn't their "right' being infringed upon?
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez Where will they come from? You cannot be this delusional. There are more than enough resources for the needs of EVERY person on the planet. The idea that there's not enough is preposterous. The problem is we allow a few to hoard massive amounts while millions do without the most basic needs, and that is NOT their "right." It is NOT infringing on anyone's rights to more equitably share the resources God gave us ALL.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Your concept of rights, logically, produces an infinite regress; i.e., a never-ending chain of consequences produced by a fallacious, circularly oriented argument. That, and your concept of rights is a "stolen-concept." Rights presuppose an axiom: "Life." If one has no right to their life, then any subsequent rights are impossible; as such, claiming that there is a "right" to clothing is saying there is a right to some people's life, time, and energy.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
However, one cannot have a right to clothes if they don't have a right to "Life"; and surely you aren't going to tell me that only some people have rights while others don't; because surely a socialist would want it to be fair and universal. You arguments are logically inconsistent and incompatible with the concept of "Rights." Your argument is akin to saying, "Existence doesn't exist." First you must presuppose the axiom that you're (implicitly) denying.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez Absolute double-talk. You can't refute the points, so you just make up out of the clear blue sky a fictional depiction of what's being said. You've shown no "logical inconsistancy", just made one up.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Socialism is morally abhorrent because it destroys the concept of private property, consequently the concept of individual rights. If someone has no right to produce (i.e., to own their own business), then they have no right to control their own life, literally. If they have no right to control their own life, then do they have their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez There's nothing "moral" about private property. That's not a moral. Caring about others is moral, hoarding for yourself isn't. Individual rights? Hoarding stuff isn't rights. Keeping others in poverty isn't a "right".
You've got a perverse idea of morality. A system that causes millions to suffer in poverty while a few hoard it all is "moral", the idea that we all SHARE the resources of the world is "immoral"? That's twisted.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
Individual rights is not the same as "hoarding," and even still hoarding is entirely rational and moral if a person has earned what he/her is hoarding. The second part of your reply is a description of socialism-communism, not capitalism. You think people in the United States suffer? Take a hard look at Soviet Russia. Too extreme? Cube. North Korea. China. The soft socialist states of Europe are crumbling under massive deficits.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
@Soupflakez Hoarding is NOT a right. You call it a "right" it is NOT. Individual rights are NOT the right to grab up massive wealth while others starve. This is the problem, the radical right thinks the ONLY rights are non-existant "property rights". That's not a right.
And Cuba suffers because of the despicable illegal blockade by the United States, And STILL they have a lower infant mortality rate and 100% literacy. The "socialist" states in Europe troubled because of RIGHT WING governments
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653
He's just pissed off, and rightfully so. We all say crap that we don't mean when we're emotional; especially if we're so emotional we cannot gather our thoughts and convey them in any coherent, intelligible manner.
Soupflakez 1 year ago
Advocating the use of anthrax on those who disagree with you- nice. And you say that THEY should be arrested?!?
9mclaus 1 year ago
Love the comment at 5:56 ROFL!!!
uurrah 1 year ago
socialism !! **gasp...sigh americunts
HailRasec 1 year ago
so lets get this straight, you walk around posting up flyers that offend people who hold a certain set of religious beleifs, for no reason, (im athiest so yeah), and you say the horror story is the flier you found? im not socialist, nor do i support socialism, but everything you read of that flier were things i agree with, they are just misguided. so, which flier is really the offense i ask? maybe you need to do a little more thinking.
undeadfred1 1 year ago
hahahah...Socialism...what a joke. Even more so are the idiots who think it a good thing.
Stunr99 1 year ago
Wow dude, fuck you. You are a walking contradiction my "friend".
Kasu1917 2 years ago
Also, it is because the Haitian government doesn't protect their individual rights that they allow foreigners to take advantage
This isn't an argument against individual rights, but rather for them
Sam26100 2 years ago
@Sam26100
the Haitian government has no choice.
You're the one playing with semantics:
Capitalism, in practice, leads to the removal of choice and free will for all but the elite, who are able to truly capitalize from that economic system.
The "free market" is only free for the elite. You see this time and time again: economic invasion by corporations and foreign powers who steal and plunder to make a quick profit.
Look at the history of the world, and realize the folly of capitalism.
Scentless 2 years ago
Not according to the definition of Capitalism I gave which is the original and proper definition
For anything you have said to make sense to me, you first have to give me your definition of Capitalism
Sam26100 2 years ago
What an idiot.
johnrcoben 2 years ago
This is horrible. So you'll attack people advocating universal rights to food, clothes, and shelter, yet you leave fat ass limp dick corporate fiends at fast food companies and food additive manufactures untouched? Disgusting.
SirLoin21 2 years ago 3
rights to food?
So, you're saying you can have a 'right' to take my property from me?
A 'right' to deprive other people of 'rights'?
Sam26100 2 years ago
@Sam26100
There's a difference between personal property and private property.
And it'd do you well to bother with something other than stale talking points from the 1950s.
You don't realize how selfish you're behaving. Nothing of yours in jeopardy. People around the world have been abused in ways you can't imagine because of capitalism's never-ending march of expansion. All of the cheap stuff you worship is the result of exploitation. Your home might as well be soaked in blood.
Scentless 2 years ago
Umm I was born in a thirld world country, how about you?
The reason I advocate objectivism is exactly because I have seen suffering. Most people who advocate socialism never trully have. I've seen hundreds of starving children at an airport in the city where I was born (Moscow)
To say that capitalism is responsible for poverty is one of the most historically ignorant things ever.
You think people weren't dying of starvation BEFORE capitalism?
So, where were you raised?
Sam26100 2 years ago
@Sam26100
Capitalism *is* responsible for poverty. All of the so-called prosperity it creates comes at a cost. Look at Haiti, look at the Caribbean, look at Africa. Capitalists support the corrupt regimes that rule those countries as long as they let their corporations operate within. Free trade laws and deregulation bleed nations dry and turn them into nothing more than export-heavy shitholes that rely on what is essentially slave labor to generate wealth for others.
Scentless 2 years ago
Nonsense
When looking at countries like Haiti you first have to ask: what is THEIR social system?
It certainly isn't capitalism.
The kind of poverty they live in is what the norm was before the word "Capitalism" was even invented.
Read history. Before capitalism every country had 98% starving people, and a few monarchs at the top.
Capitalism is a system of private ownership, where people's individual rights are held above everything else.
It is the only moral system
Sam26100 2 years ago
Capitalism isn't about morality, it's about profit. Haiti was in poverty because after their independence was won, the French made them nation pay "reparations" for years.
The US' involvement with Haiti is even more disgusting than France trying to jack money from former slaves. The Us invaded Haiti and to give their bank away to Citibank in 1911. the country has been plagued by the scourge of capitalism and unbridled greed.
Scentless 2 years ago
No, capitalism isn't just about profit. It's about every individual's right to their property, which an essential right for other liberties as well.
If you have a right to take my property it is the same as being able to kill me. I cannot live without my posessions. If you take my house and my land, I can't grow food and Im dead.
Without the right to property and the profit of our work we are slaves.
You damn the very word "profit" as if it were shameful to be rewarded for work
Sam26100 2 years ago
@Sam26100
Sophistry.
Capitalism is about gaining wealth. When it comes down to it, capitalists will stomp on the rights to property of other people as they wish. They conspire to take away indigenous land, fuck, they take over entire countries, all in the name of higher profit margins. You refuse to recognize this, and the corporate-owned media won't recognize this. Everything and everyone is corrupted by greed to some degree in the US.
Scentless 2 years ago
You're screwing around with definitions
Capitalism means private ownership, which implies people's inaliable individual rights.
If people intrude on other's individual rights, they are not capitalists.
FREE market, means no force, coersion or fraud. If any of those things exist, then the market is not free. The government's proper job is to ensure that people don't violate other's individual rights in a true Capitalist economy.
That is the ideal, but socialism is barbaric
Sam26100 2 years ago
You're silly
Haiti is incapable of having wealth. It has a tyranical government and their people don't know how to organize or produce anything.
To blame other countries for their problems is like blaming me for somebody else's house being messy.
America certainly had other countries try to take advantage of us in the past, and so did other prosperous nations. It didn't keep us from gaining wealth, so the argument fails.
Sam26100 2 years ago
@Sam26100
If you came into my house and took a shit on my coffee table, I'd have no choice but to call you out.
You're ignoring the history behind Haiti's plight, and the plight of workers the world over. You're ignoring one of the most egregious examples of corporate greed and malfeasance in human history because it doesn't jive with the silly platitudes of your Capitalist religion. America has NEVER faced anything like Haiti has, or any other 3rd world nation. Saying otherwise is a lie.
Scentless 2 years ago
If I came into your house I'd assume you first had a house that was worth something correct?
at what point in history was Haiti worth anything economically?
Sam26100 2 years ago
@Sam26100
It had tons of natural resources, and arable land-they could have been making billions from agriculture exports, but the forests are gone, and everyone is living the cities because the sweatshop slave camps are the only source of income left. Corporate-backed policies by the IMF and the aforementioned fuckery by the French and US led to crushing debt with even more crushing prohibitions on how the state could spend what little money it had-so no infrastructure.
Scentless 2 years ago
Evil free trade advocates like Robert Mugabe, no doubt.
Guncriminal 2 years ago
@Guncriminal
For every Mugabe, there are hundreds of Dows Chemicals, Royal-Dutch Shells, and De Beers.
Scentless 2 years ago
The difference between personal property and private property is purely arbitrary.
To be allowed to sieze one is to be allowed to sieze the other.
Guncriminal 2 years ago
@Guncriminal
Who said anything about seizure? Socialism and socialists aren't as dogmatic as you'd like to believe.
and it's not my fault that you're incapable of comprehending the difference between the two; or rather, that you don't believe that there's a distinction at all.
Scentless 2 years ago
Mind if we raid your bank account to fund these so-called rights?
Guncriminal 2 years ago
@Guncriminal
Who's raiding anything?
No man is an island. As much as you might hate to admit it, you haven't accomplished anything in your life without the help of others to some degree. It's our responsibility as human beings to cooperate with each other. That's how our species progressed-we spent less time devouring each other and more time collaborating.
Scentless 2 years ago
lol i deal with idiots like that all the time
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
Um, if it was an open meeting, how are you "crashing it?"
DonJack1776 2 years ago 2
You stated that you were defending "free speech"...ok maybe you consider spreading discrimination and stereotypes free speech, fine...but why did you advocate for taking down socialist flyers, crashing socialist meetings, and mailing the socialist party usa anthrax? That's stopping free speech...right? Isn't using violence to stop freedom of speech exactly what you were criticizing the "Muslims" for doing? I hope you know that you're a hypocrite and a bigot.
lalalaboomdeeay 2 years ago
mail them anthrax? killing a socialist is ok? i get it. idiots kill.
jorgemexicali 2 years ago
sorry, despise.
Sam26100 2 years ago
You sound like some kind of fascist ARREST people because they want social justiice and have founded a movement to fight for it. Whats all the shock horror about why is the word AMERICAN supposed to be antithetical to socialism, anti racism, workers rights etc?
To me you really sound like a bigot. You think people are ignorant because they believe in something more than corporate greed and moronic nationalist narrow mindedness.
YOU have the right to free speech but THEY should be arrested!
trifelgeputinage 2 years ago 4
oh man, this is a great story
TheObnubilators 2 years ago
@TheObnubilators
Yeah. Racist asshole gets called out for being an annoying twat.
More news at '11.
Scentless 2 years ago
I'm glad someone finally realizes that we have a problem on campus. Then again most people are too apathetic to care about the lies being spread around by these ideologues.
dkh1786 2 years ago
I know, it's baffaling that your dogmatic views aren't accepted by more than a tiny minority of your fellow students. They must all be idiots because your objectivist credo is undeniably The Truth.
Stop wacking off to Ayn Rand and get a clue.
Hushashabega 3 years ago
Mr Cropper have you encountered Socinus and his question on Youtube to Capitalist defenders. I mistakenly tried argue with him and asked him to refute the argument made in Atlas Shrugged as the best case ever made against Socialism. I also attempted to outline my experiences of the Soviet Union and Socialism in Britain growing up in Socialist housing. These apparently count for nothing in his vast experience! Is it possible to reason with Socialists? Check out Socinus if you dare!
CORNELIUSNOWHERE 3 years ago
Ha ha ha!!! Me and my friends crashed a "Progressive" meeting, a few months ago. That was horrific. Those people are hateful and crazy, and they don't even realize it. :o
For some reason, "the right to choose" is more important to these people than the 1st, 4th & 13th Amendments combined. =\
I think Colleges are pretty much Socialist indoctrination centers. High-schools, too.
Recommended Book: 'The Road To Serfdom' by F.A. Hayek
gunsandbullhorns 3 years ago
So much hatred and anger, So little intelligence. Lets consider some socialist countries, France, Britain, Germany, Most Scandinavian countries. Basically all the countries with the highest standard of living on earth.
BaronNully 3 years ago
You sound really creepy. Sorry, but... MAN.
thejobloshow 3 years ago
Lol there's something of a Freudian slip their deliberate separation of Democracy and Socialism rather than simply saying they fight for "Democracy".
Xtro2005 3 years ago
So Muslims wear turbans do they? I thought that was Sikhs. Are Sikhs responsible for terrorism then? You are making ridiculous generalisations about people.
I thought the SP-USA's programme sounded very sensible, reasonable and an improvement on the mess we are in at the moment. What was their address again?
druscot 3 years ago
sikhs have been responsible for attacks in the past
905rocks 2 years ago
Obviously the artist meant to satirise Muslims in the wake of 9/11 - but he should at least do some basic research first. Only a tiny minority of people are terrorists. Socialists are opposed to terrorism, but it is completely inaccurate and a massively sweeping generalisation to brand everyone wearing a turban, or every Muslim a terrorist. That is why the cartoons transgress the limits of free speech - they are inciting racial hatred.
druscot 2 years ago
you will be hung by the revolution you fuck.
vergaparatumama 3 years ago
Not if we hang the revolution first.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
CropperB "i am fighting for freedom" , yet you want the socialists arrested?
and "they're killing people", take a look at your beloved US marines in the latter half of the 20th century.
arcticmunchy 3 years ago
lol while both me and Cropper clearly dislike socialism, I got the feeling that the comment on arresting socialists was an exaggaration meant in jehst. From what Ive seen of Cropper i get the feeling these actions are more out of objectivist rationality than US allegiance. However, states labelling themselves under the banner of socialism dont have the best record for not killing people. the hipocrisy argument is an 'ad hominem tu quoque' fallacy anyway, but i do get where youre coming from..
Scratchy100 3 years ago
Well I don't. He words are so much tired rhetoric. Look at teh Amerikkkan evir!11 Why? Is America some adversary to socialism? Historically yes, in modern practice no. Has socialism helped anyone? No. What does it do? It creates the ultimate aristocracy that has complete legal right to your life.
Xtro2005 3 years ago
YAY.
UnionKid15 3 years ago
Uneducated Fascist arsehole.
JAMcreations 3 years ago
y do you say that JAM?
comedyguy21 3 years ago
This guy is very ignorant , absoloutly no back up to his opinions. Why is socialism bad? Whos killing who ? Muslim fanatics or US marines? Just a typical American Brainwashed fascist
arcticmunchy 3 years ago
The muhammed cartoon issue was not directly related to the iraq war, but to muslim fanaticism. who's killing who? danish cartoonists or muslim fanatics firebombing their embassy? And you think we should slink away and advocate that kind of behaviour from violent terrorists? Posting the muhammed image was in defiance of that, an adovcation of personal freedom. Something which, incidentally, cannot exist in a socialist society. Study objectivism, his opinion is fully objectively backed up there
Scratchy100 3 years ago
The muslim cartoon was based on the Bombings in around Europe. Britain is being bombed because we are occupying Iraq. Its simple , the reason we are being attacked is because we are attacking!
personal freedom can't exist in a socialist society? how bout you read a book. I hear your gods , Hitler and mussolini didnt give to much liberty to there people! Your the type that would want to pass the 42 day detention act, so dont give me shit about freedom.
arcticmunchy 3 years ago
britain was bombed because of the wide permeation of islamic fanaticism in modern britain, and the non negotiable fundamentalist violence that comes with it.
So far you have made no actual points, merely thrown around wild accusations about me being a nazi, condoned terrorism and fundamentalist intolerance, created a false dichotomy between socialism and fascism,raising no actual points. youre an insult to the 7/7 victims, grow up you sad uneducated archetypal whiney abstracted communist moron.
Scratchy100 3 years ago
oh and am i to understand that you therefore see any mockery of islamic fundamentalist terrorism unjustified, even after the horrific events caused by such terrorism, simply because of the iraqi occupation. I was not in favour of that war, but that in no way makes terrorism beyond reproach or mockery. ultimately they had the right to make that cartoon and we have the right to display it wherever we wish. They have NO right to kill us over the trivialisation of an illiterate goatherder prophet.
Scratchy100 3 years ago
Why havnt we been bombed by these fundamentalists pre-the iraq war? The injustices in Iraq have turned these muslims to radical Islam. How can you deny this?
I see your point on the cartoon. The muslims simply can't act like this is western liberal democracy. But
arcticmunchy 3 years ago
Concerning your point on Iraq i admit Iraq may have been catalytic, but when taking in to account the history of the political spread of islam, the nature of shariah law, and the open admission by the terrorists of their rationalisation for these actions, it would frankly be glib to simply label iraq as the root cause of this. it is the nature of intolerant fanaticism that has permeated middle eastern islamic theocracy for over a millenium, that led to modern terrorism.
Scratchy100 3 years ago
Correction: we are being attacked, like all other adversaries of Islamic Fascism, because we're resisting.
Has personal freedom ever existed in a socialist society? The Socialist evicts rights to speech, property and capital so by what means can any human subject to socialism express their "freedom"? How can they obtain it if they have no power whatsoever to influence their society?
Xtro2005 3 years ago
Our Gods, Hitler and Mussolini? Both were Fascists. Neither were capitalist in any fashion if that is what you meant to imply. Fascism is a direct parallel to socialism. Hayek wasn't the first to suggest that Fascism is simply the end result of socialism. As we can see the only difference between German Socialists and German Fascists were the avenues for their pet projects and the flags they rallied under.
Xtro2005 3 years ago
You have the right to free speech. What was the charge for the idiots to call the campus cops?!? Thought crime?!?
GAH!!!! I am so sick of these PC pussies slapping everyone else down and shutting us up!
Welcome to Amerika!!!
eventide925 3 years ago
You are pretty funny! First you complain that your fliers were torn down all, but you feel justified in tearing all the socialist's fliers. You think socialists should be arrested? Have you ever heard of the 1st Amendment? Where does it say in the Constitution that the U.S. should be exclusively capitalist?
human3485bil 3 years ago
Fuck all the smelly muslims!
88ragtime 3 years ago
I don't know if you are joking, or if you are that delusional.
You go around putting really offensive posters, yet you acted shocked when somebody called you out on it.
You claim to fight for freedom, yet you said the socialists should be arrested and you gave no reason why.
I seriously hope you are pulling some form of political satire like Stephen Colbert.
chromelemon 3 years ago
Anarchy!
Epblueyes 3 years ago
You should use the freedom to think.
voroshilov 3 years ago
your a fucking douchebag. Socialist ideas build your fucking hydro power plants.
Socialism in many of it's forms (Fabianism, Democratic Socialism, Marxism Leninism, Trotskyism, Labourism and many others.
You are a fucking idiot if you believe they should be arrested. Didn't you just talk about free speech and democracy?
Muslims killing people. What about anglicans, sikhs and baptists. Hindus? Shut the fuck up, munter.
voroshilov 3 years ago
obviously someone has issues. You know you tell the person to the freedom to think. claiming that he like his ideas are wrong and that he lacks intelectual credibility and yet you use name calling. how intellectual do you think that makes you look? calling people fucking idiots and calling for thier arrests only makes you look nazist. after all dont you support free speech and diversity? or is diversity only skin deep?
JME1282 3 years ago
Americans doesn't know what socialism is...
JustWickedSwede 3 years ago 2
Lots of socialist comments, but no reason or logic... just slogans and invective. Luka came closest to giving an argument, so for there's at least hope... he at least does the service of trying to reason.
But the overproduction argument doesn't hold up... The Malthus-Sismondi overproduction argument has been refuted many times. Frankly, it's equivalent to arguing that socialism cannot produce as well as capitalism, and then ignoring the role of relative prices in allocation.
ADebreu 3 years ago
The Democrast are not Socialist they are capitalist who hide behinde a wall of lise.
We are living in a Fascist state right now and some of you don't see this
Long Live Socialism and the working Class
Ps if the Socialist Party USA were fascist than why would we have a pin with a white hand and a black hand shacking hands
jhsams 3 years ago
i live in canada a welfare sate here any hatred can be fined
905rocks 2 years ago
(3:40)
"we've got their address I don't know why we just don't go arrest them"
You sir are a complete moron and everything that is wrong with the uS today
TheGreenRooster 4 years ago
Americans sending Anthrax to those with dissenting opinion?? (5:57)
Have you no original American ideas. ;-)
America's myth of "Manifest Destiny" is your problem.
Your way or the highway; like the divine right of kings.
phoneyid 4 years ago
Hater!
bandiroots 4 years ago
The US is still largely a market economy, but look at the sector where govt has interfered most: health care. Since mid-1960s the federal govt has been #1 purchaser in health care markets, and has increased its regulation and price fixing since. The spiraling health care costs and breakdown of insurance stem from this.
When we get "universal" health care our out of pocket costs might fall, but we'll also get rationing, skyrocketing taxes & deficits, and poorer quality. Socialism stinks.
ADebreu 4 years ago
Advocates of socialism have no understanding at all of the role of the price system. There's no method other than market prices for rationally allocating resources and coordinating society.
Government command and control isn't a substitute; it simply disrupts the market process and makes people poorer and less free.
ADebreu 4 years ago
I go to the economy school and im socialist,you just produce more than neccesary:)
luka55555 3 years ago
Going "to the economy school" isn't the same as understanding the price system. Read Hayek's 1945 A.E.R. article "The Use of Knowledge in Society" for a start. Steven Landsburg's text "Price Theory" has a nice chapetr on information that is also worth a look. Von Mises classic critique of socialism, "Economic Calculation is the Socialist Commonwealth" is good, even better his full dissection in "Human Action," which is lengthy but worthwhile. Read these Luka, and you'll join my position.
ADebreu 3 years ago
You who think "socialism works" have no idea what you are talking about; it has failed everywhere it has been tried.
If it works so well, why is S. Korea wealthy, N. Korea dirt poor? Why was W. Germany economically successful & E. Germany not? Why China an economic disaster until Deng Xiaoping adopted market reforms?
If your view of socialism were correct, Cuba would be wealthy and the U.S. poor, rather than vice versa. Get with it.
ADebreu 4 years ago
what a scumbag you are! socialism works, accept it
TheGreenRooster 4 years ago
if you repeat something enough you do a great job of discrediting it
astro3600 4 years ago 2
Socialism... in America?!! AHHHHHHHH!!!!! The fear that lodges in my heart at the thought of equitable wages makes me shiver. O my God!!! The thought of not having to pay $300 a month for health care is making me shit my pants!
chromelemon 4 years ago