# Communism Outside The Gulag



## PoliticalChic

You can’t have freedom without private property. Every time government issues a regulation that nibbles away at private ownership, it moves from liberty to tyranny, from capitalism to communism.

But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.



One tends to think of the genocide of the Soviet Union when the concept is discussed, but *the problems of communal rights have a more prosaic and daily consideration.*


1.In Mikhail Zoshchenko’s "A Summer Breather,” a short story about families having to live together in the ‘worker’s paradise,’ we get a truer picture of communism in action.



“Getting your own individual little apartment is of course petty bourgeois pure and simple.
People should live in harmony as a collective family, not lock themselves up in their domestic fortresses.
People should live in communal apartments. Everything there's right out in the open. There's always someone to talk to. To ask for advice. To slug it out with.

There are of course some minuses.
The electricity, for example, can be a pain.
You don't know how to figure the bill. Who pays what.
Further on, of course, when our industry gets rolling, every tenant who wants to can put even two meters in every corner. Let the meters measure how much energy has been dispensed. Then, of course, life in our apartments will shine like the sun.


Well, but for the time being it really is one big pain.


For example, at our place there are nine families. One power line. One meter. At the end of the month it's time to fall in and pay up, and then, of course, there are some serious disagreements and now and again a punchfest.

Well, all right, you say: figure it per light bulb.
Well, all right, by the bulb. So one conscientious tenant turns on the light for maybe five minutes to get undressed or catch a flea. But another tenant sits there with the light on chomping away on something until midnight. And he won't turn it off. Although it's not like he's doing ornamental design or something.

And then there's a third one, an intellectual no doubt, who will stare at a book to literally one in the morning or later with no thought to the overall situation.
And maybe he'll even take out the bulb and put in a brighter one. And study his algebra like it's the middle of the day.
And maybe that same intellectual will even shut himself up in his lair and boil water or cook macaroni on a hot plate. This is what you have to understand!

There was one tenant at our place—a mover by trade—who literally went off his rocker on account of all this. He stopped sleeping at night and was constantly trying to find out who was studying algebra and who was heating up food on hotplates. And that was the end of him. Off his rocker.”



Do you still wish Bernie Sanders had won????


----------



## PoliticalChic

Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work.   *                                                                          ,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.


----------



## sedwin

PoliticalChic said:


> Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.
> 
> Alas, there hardly ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work.   *                                                                          ,
> 
> 
> 2. Want to know where communal, living works out?
> 
> “…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.
> 
> Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.
> 
> Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.


And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"  Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism.  Was Stalin evil?  Yes.  Were Hitler and Mussolini evil?  Yes.  The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sedwin said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.
> 
> Alas, there hardly ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work.   *                                                                          ,
> 
> 
> 2. Want to know where communal, living works out?
> 
> “…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.
> 
> Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.
> 
> Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.
> 
> 
> 
> And atta
> cks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"  Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism.  Was Stalin evil?  Yes.  Were Hitler and Mussolini evil?  Yes.  The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.
Click to expand...




1."And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"
Gads, you are a moron.....can't you even spell *'Liberalism'?*????


2."fascism is the extreme result of conservatism."
Of course it isn't.

There are so very many errors in what passes for 'thinking' in your case that one hardly knows where to begin.

Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....


Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:




1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course*, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.*

*They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism



Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism






How about pointing out *which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?*
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e.,* conservatism.*





You're a government school grad, huh?


3.One more thing, you dolt.....there is no Far Right in this country....only a Far Left


----------



## sedwin

PoliticalChic said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.
> 
> Alas, there hardly ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work.   *                                                                          ,
> 
> 
> 2. Want to know where communal, living works out?
> 
> “…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.
> 
> Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.
> 
> Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.
> 
> 
> 
> And atta
> cks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"  Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism.  Was Stalin evil?  Yes.  Were Hitler and Mussolini evil?  Yes.  The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1."And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"
> Gads, you are a moron.....can't you even spell *'Liberalism'?*????
> 
> 
> 2."fascism is the extreme result of conservatism."
> Of course it isn't.
> 
> There are so very many errors in what passes for 'thinking' in your case that one hardly knows where to begin.
> 
> Let's begin with definitions.
> Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
> 
> 
> Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
> 2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
> 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
> 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
> 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
> 6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
> 7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
> 8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
> 
> 9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
> 
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course*, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.*
> 
> *They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*
> 
> 
> 
> Nazism
> 
> Communism
> 
> Socialism
> 
> Fascism
> 
> Progressivism
> 
> Liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about pointing out *which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?*
> Right....none of 'em.
> Only right wing philosophies...i.e.,* conservatism.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> 3.One more thing, you dolt.....there is no Far Right in this country....only a Far Left
Click to expand...


So cute that in your opening sentence you claim I cannot spell "liberalism" while using quotation marks incorrectly.  Seriously, funny.  I would comment on EVERYTHING else you wrote, but this is an Internet forum.  If I wanted to read a book, I would read a book.  Luckily, I have zero interest in reading a book on the lunatic ravings of a partisan hack.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sedwin said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.
> 
> Alas, there hardly ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work.   *                                                                          ,
> 
> 
> 2. Want to know where communal, living works out?
> 
> “…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.
> 
> Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.
> 
> Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.
> 
> 
> 
> And atta
> cks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"  Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism.  Was Stalin evil?  Yes.  Were Hitler and Mussolini evil?  Yes.  The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1."And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"
> Gads, you are a moron.....can't you even spell *'Liberalism'?*????
> 
> 
> 2."fascism is the extreme result of conservatism."
> Of course it isn't.
> 
> There are so very many errors in what passes for 'thinking' in your case that one hardly knows where to begin.
> 
> Let's begin with definitions.
> Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
> 
> 
> Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
> 2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
> 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
> 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
> 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
> 6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
> 7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
> 8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
> 
> 9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
> 
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course*, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.*
> 
> *They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*
> 
> 
> 
> Nazism
> 
> Communism
> 
> Socialism
> 
> Fascism
> 
> Progressivism
> 
> Liberalism
> 
> 
> 
> Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about pointing out *which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?*
> Right....none of 'em.
> Only right wing philosophies...i.e.,* conservatism.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a government school grad, huh?
> 
> 
> 3.One more thing, you dolt.....there is no Far Right in this country....only a Far Left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So cute that in your opening sentence you claim I cannot spell "liberalism" while using quotation marks incorrectly.  Seriously, funny.  I would comment on EVERYTHING else you wrote, but this is an Internet forum.  If I wanted to read a book, I would read a book.  Luckily, I have zero interest in reading a book on the lunatic ravings of a partisan hack.
Click to expand...






You wrote "...I have zero interest in reading a book..."
Truer words where never written 



You can run but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber


Your ignorance is on display.

You're dismissed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

3. A great, if unmentioned,* benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.*

*…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, *and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.

Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.



Indians had no concept of private property:

 "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling *what they didn't possess* to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the *records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."*
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


1626  Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24, 1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War.  Peter Minuit (1589-1638)



 And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*


----------



## Rigby5

Of course you can have freedom without private property.
In any family, is there any private property really?
Does each person have to own their own TV, couch, table chair, etc.?
Of course not.
When you have use of all the communally owned property, then you don't need to personally own any.
That is what many tribes, religious orders, clubs, organizations, etc., have always done.

The only problem comes up with someone who is greedy tries to prevent others from having access to what they need.
It is private property that often really is theft.
We inherently are/were hunter/gatherers, and by claiming land ownership over land we did not create, we are harming hunter/gatherers.


----------



## PoliticalChic

4. Here, on this continent, i*t was the arrival of the Europeans that induced the Indians to give up communal property rights for private property rights.*



“In his article “*Towards a theory of property rights”* Harold Demsetz shows by a historic example of the Montagnes Indians t*he impact of private property. *It demonstrates the different behaviours in cases with and without private property rights, how private property solves negative externalities and the role of coordination by changing individuals’ behaviour.

The Montagnes Indians had no restrictions on hunting (=> open-access common property good). 

…* when the colonists started in the 18th century to inquire beaver furs from the Indians, the value of the beaver increased *to such an extent, that the onset of intensification of hunting led to a decline in the beaver population (= negative externality).

Everyone hunted as much as he could and nobody cared about the sustainability of the beaver population. The benefit/revenue of each animal was individual for the hunter, but the costs of the stock decline had the community as a whole (= tragedy of the commons).

*The Montagnes Indians successfully solved the problem by the allocation of individual territories on the families* (= exactly defined property right), so that individual incentives appeared to plan for the long term under consideration of the beaver population. Consequently the negative externality was remedied and the individuals’ behavior purposely changed by property rights (Demsetz, 1967: 351 – 354).”                                      Property rights



Need it be said that an established law, not the law of the jungle, is a corollary to private property rights?
Except when Leftist take power, and do what the Nazis did to private property rights:

"It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that *most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.*

What Mises identified was that *private ownership of the means of production existed *_*in name only*_* under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. *For it was _the German government_ and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the _substantive powers of ownership_: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian


Just like Liberalism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> Of course you can have freedom without private property.
> In any family, is there any private property really?
> Does each person have to own their own TV, couch, table chair, etc.?
> Of course not.
> When you have use of all the communally owned property, then you don't need to personally own any.
> That is what many tribes, religious orders, clubs, organizations, etc., have always done.
> 
> The only problem comes up with someone who is greedy tries to prevent others from having access to what they need.
> It is private property that often really is theft.
> We inherently are/were hunter/gatherers, and by claiming land ownership over land we did not create, we are harming hunter/gatherers.





You should have read post #2, you would have appeared far brighter.


This was said post:

Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Alas, there hardly ever is.



Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work. *,


2. Want to know where communal, living works out?

“…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.

Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.

Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45


----------



## Rigby5

PoliticalChic said:


> ...
> 
> And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*




American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better.
By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature that could easily have continued forever, without change, if we had not screwed it up.

The evidence is that at one time, American natives had huge cities over over a million people, there were still some on Mexico and South America.  But in North America, all large cities had been long abandoned before the Europeans came.  That is likely because large cities are not sustainable, and never will be.


----------



## sedwin

Rigby5 said:


> Of course you can have freedom without private property.
> In any family, is there any private property really?
> Does each person have to own their own TV, couch, table chair, etc.?
> Of course not.
> When you have use of all the communally owned property, then you don't need to personally own any.
> That is what many tribes, religious orders, clubs, organizations, etc., have always done.
> 
> The only problem comes up with someone who is greedy tries to prevent others from having access to what they need.
> It is private property that often really is theft.
> We inherently are/were hunter/gatherers, and by claiming land ownership over land we did not create, we are harming hunter/gatherers.


Right?  Private property is literally a restraint upon freedom.  You are required to pay taxes, mortgage, insurance, you have to pay for upkeep.  In many communities there are covenants you have to obey.  In reality, being "tied down" to your property and all that goes with it prevents freedom.  It's a false narrative used as a response to what some see as an "evil socialism."  Does one have the freedom to not own property?  Of course.  How about those who cannot afford to own property?  I guess they're not free?  It's a rationalization, nothing more.


----------



## sedwin

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better.
> By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature that could easily have continued forever, without change, if we had not screwed it up.
> 
> The evidence is that at one time, American natives had huge cities over over a million people, there were still some on Mexico and South America.  But in North America, all large cities had been long abandoned before the Europeans came.  That is likely because large cities are not sustainable, and never will be.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true.  I recall reading the actual diaries of the Spanish Conquistadors (and others) in college and in those works they speak of huge North American populations dying off from disease inadvertently brought by the Europeans.


----------



## Rigby5

PoliticalChic said:


> ...
> 
> Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.
> 
> Alas, there hardly ever is.
> 
> Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work. *,
> 
> 2. Want to know where communal, living works out?
> 
> “…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.
> 
> Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.
> 
> Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45



Except you are forgetting that no human can stand to see the elderly, ill, lame, handicapped, injured, orphaned, etc., suffer.
And the greatest goal for all normal humans is to get recognition for helping others.
You can try to train humans not to be human, but the result is a dismal and vicious society that destroys itself, like Caligula's Rome.


----------



## Rigby5

sedwin said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better.
> By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature that could easily have continued forever, without change, if we had not screwed it up.
> 
> The evidence is that at one time, American natives had huge cities over over a million people, there were still some on Mexico and South America.  But in North America, all large cities had been long abandoned before the Europeans came.  That is likely because large cities are not sustainable, and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that is true.  I recall reading the actual diaries of the Spanish Conquistadors (and others) in college and in those works they speak of huge North American populations dying off from disease inadvertently brought by the Europeans.
Click to expand...



There was a time about 30 to 60 thousand years ago that game was overly plentiful and natives used wasteful hunting techniques, like herding them off cliffs.  But they had stopped wasteful techniques long before the Europeans came.
Humans were new to the Americas at first, and had to learn what was a reasonable balance.  They made some mistakes, but learned not to latter.  We have not learned yet.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better.
> By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature that could easily have continued forever, without change, if we had not screwed it up.
> 
> The evidence is that at one time, American natives had huge cities over over a million people, there were still some on Mexico and South America.  But in North America, all large cities had been long abandoned before the Europeans came.  That is likely because large cities are not sustainable, and never will be.
Click to expand...



The subject of the thread is the fact that collectivism never works.

It seems that you can't disagree with this, and would rather discuss the debilitations of the so-called 'Nobel Savages.'

You are incorrect here:
"American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better."



And this is simply laughable:

"By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature."


A favorite Indian device was the ‘jump’, which meant *stampeding herds of animals*over a cliff, so that the fall would kill them, described in "Playing God in Yellowstone," by Alston Chase.

"The Vore buffalo jump site in Wyoming...was used five times between 1550 and 1690, and holds the remains of 20,000 buffalo. That means 4,000 or more buffalo were killed each time the jump was used. Other buffalo jumps in the West display*the remains of as many as 300,000 buffalo. These sites were so numerous,* in fact, and held such large deposits of bone, that for many years they were mined as a source of phosphorus for fertilizer!" 
Frison, G.C., "Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains," pp.239-44

Large amounts of *meat were left to rot and herds of animals were decimated, and sometimes driven to local extinction*. Buffalo and antelope traps killed so many that it took the herds decades to recover.


The savages were equally judicious in the use of forest fires.


I'd be more than happy to suggest reading material which would aid you in your journey toward education.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sedwin said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can have freedom without private property.
> In any family, is there any private property really?
> Does each person have to own their own TV, couch, table chair, etc.?
> Of course not.
> When you have use of all the communally owned property, then you don't need to personally own any.
> That is what many tribes, religious orders, clubs, organizations, etc., have always done.
> 
> The only problem comes up with someone who is greedy tries to prevent others from having access to what they need.
> It is private property that often really is theft.
> We inherently are/were hunter/gatherers, and by claiming land ownership over land we did not create, we are harming hunter/gatherers.
> 
> 
> 
> Right?  Private property is literally a restraint upon freedom.  You are required to pay taxes, mortgage, insurance, you have to pay for upkeep.  In many communities there are covenants you have to obey.  In reality, being "tied down" to your property and all that goes with it prevents freedom.  It's a false narrative used as a response to what some see as an "evil socialism."  Does one have the freedom to not own property?  Of course.  How about those who cannot afford to own property?  I guess they're not free?  It's a rationalization, nothing more.
Click to expand...




Just when I think some government school moron had posted the most absurd thing ever, one of you comes up with this sort of thing:

"Right? Private property is literally a restraint upon freedom."


----------



## dudmuck

Bernie Sander's isnt any threat to private property.
He's just pushing to move towards something like Scandinavian countries economic setup.
Instead its Jeff Sessions forfeiture proposal to confiscate property without any criminal charges.
Its the epitome of big government.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.
> 
> Alas, there hardly ever is.
> 
> Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work. *,
> 
> 2. Want to know where communal, living works out?
> 
> “…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.
> 
> Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.
> 
> Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you are forgetting that no human can stand to see the elderly, ill, lame, handicapped, injured, orphaned, etc., suffer.
> And the greatest goal for all normal humans is to get recognition for helping others.
> You can try to train humans not to be human, but the result is a dismal and vicious society that destroys itself, like Caligula's Rome.
Click to expand...



"Except you are forgetting that no human can stand to see the elderly, ill, lame, handicapped, injured, orphaned, etc., suffer."

OMG!


 
*"On the 27th of April they came northward, invading the United States. Innumerable outrages were committed by them which are now part of the history of that heart-breaking campaign. One, for example, typical of the rest was the case of the Peck family. Their ranch was surrounded, the family captured and a number of the ranch hands killed. The husband {38} was tied and compelled to witness the tortures to which his wife was submitted. His daughter, thirteen years old, was abducted by the band and carried nearly three hundred miles. In the meantime Captain Lawton's command with Wood in charge of the Apache scouts was pursuing them hotly." THE CAREER OF LEONARD WOOD; JOSEPH HAMBLEN SEARS
*

*Brutality of Aztecs, Mayas Corroborated
Scholars had doubted Spaniards' tales of human sacrifice. But new evidence shows that it happened, and that it was purposely painful.
January 23, 2005|Mark Stevenson | Associated Press Writer

o    

MEXICO CITY — It has long been a matter of contention: Was the Aztec and Mayan practice of human sacrifice as widespread and horrifying as the history books say? Or did the Spanish conquerors overstate it to make the Indians look primitive?

In recent years archeologists have uncovered mounting physical evidence that corroborates the Spanish accounts in substance, if not number.

Using high-tech forensic tools, archeologists are proving that pre-Hispanic sacrifices often involved children and a broad array of intentionally brutal killing methods.

For decades, many researchers believed Spanish accounts from the 16th and 17th centuries were biased to denigrate Indian cultures. Others argued that sacrifices were largely confined to captured warriors. Still others conceded the Aztecs were bloody, but believed the Maya were less so.

Brutality of Aztecs, Mayas Corroborated



How Comanche Indians butchered babies, roasted enemies alive and would ride 1,000 miles to wipe out one family
How Comanche Indians butchered babies and roasted enemies alive | Daily Mail Online


Several months earlier, in September, 1874, Catherine German and her family had been moving up the Smoky Hill River in western Kansas with everything they owned in the back of a covered wagon. The Germans, originally from Georgia, were bound for Colorado and a fresh start. Just moments after breaking camp that morning, the family was surprised by Indians. Within minutes the wagon was in flames, the mother, father, and two children were dead and scalped, and four daughters — Catherine, aged 17, Sophia, 12, and little Julia and Addie, aged 7 and 5 respectively — were carried off into captivity.

Catherine’s story is not a pretty one to relate. 

There are no Harlequin Romance endings here; no Dances With Wolves Hollywood nonsense; no silly sentimentality. Catherine was raped repeatedly during her captivity, as was her sister, Sophia; both were traded back and forth from one brave to the next; both were transformed into tribal prostitutes, their worth measured in horses. Each time the frail young women were forced to fetch wood or water for their respective lodges, each trembled in fear for each could expect to be raped as many as six times per trip.

Although the details surrounding Catherine’s rescue are a bit unusual, the conditions of her captivity are not. During the research for my book, Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865–1879




, I had a chance to study at random the ordeals of some dozen young women captured by Indians, including Catherine German and her sisters. With little variation, the accounts told the same sad story—rape, enslavement, brutality, beatings, abuse. For good reason I named their chapter in the book, “A Fate Worse Than Death.”

Thomas Goodrich, "A Fate Worse than Death" | Counter-Currents Publishing
*


*Have you ever read a book, or do you simply enjoy being an imbecile?????*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American natives did cause extinctions, such as the mammoth, but that was early on before they knew better.
> By the time the Europeans arrived, the American natives no longer allowed any extinction to occur, and were in a balance with nature that could easily have continued forever, without change, if we had not screwed it up.
> 
> The evidence is that at one time, American natives had huge cities over over a million people, there were still some on Mexico and South America.  But in North America, all large cities had been long abandoned before the Europeans came.  That is likely because large cities are not sustainable, and never will be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that is true.  I recall reading the actual diaries of the Spanish Conquistadors (and others) in college and in those works they speak of huge North American populations dying off from disease inadvertently brought by the Europeans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time about 30 to 60 thousand years ago that game was overly plentiful and natives used wasteful hunting techniques, like herding them off cliffs.  But they had stopped wasteful techniques long before the Europeans came.
> Humans were new to the Americas at first, and had to learn what was a reasonable balance.  They made some mistakes, but learned not to latter.  We have not learned yet.
Click to expand...

"There was a time about 30 to 60 thousand years ago that game was overly plentiful and natives used wasteful hunting techniques, like herding them off cliffs.  But they had stopped wasteful techniques long before the Europeans came."

You're a moron.


*"Method of the hunt[edit]*
Hunters herded the bison and drove them over the cliff, breaking their legs and rendering them immobile. Tribe members waiting below closed in with spears and bows to finish the kills. The Blackfoot First Nations called the buffalo jumps "pishkun", which loosely translates as "deep blood kettle". This type of hunting was a communal event which occurred as early as 12,000 years ago and lasted until at least 1500 AD, around the time of the introduction of horses. The broader term *game jumps*includes buffalo jumps and cliffs used for similarly hunting other herding animals, such as reindeer. The Indians believed that if any buffalo escaped these killings then the rest of the buffalos would learn to avoid humans, which would make hunting even harder.[1]

Buffalo jump sites are often identified by rock cairns, which were markers designating "drive lanes", by which bison would be funneled over the cliff. These drive lanes would often stretch for several miles. They also smashed the Buffalo Rock that'shy its called "Smashed Buffalo Rock"
Buffalo jump - Wikipedia


----------



## PoliticalChic

dudmuck said:


> Bernie Sander's isnt any threat to private property.
> He's just pushing to move towards something like Scandinavian countries economic setup.
> Instead its Jeff Sessions forfeiture proposal to confiscate property without any criminal charges.
> Its the epitome of big government.




Another moron joins the fray.


Bernie Sanders is a communist.

Communists decry private property to the extent that they starved 10 million men, women and children to death to prove that point.


Did I mention that you're a moron?


----------



## dudmuck

PoliticalChic said:


> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bernie Sander's isnt any threat to private property.
> He's just pushing to move towards something like Scandinavian countries economic setup.
> Instead its Jeff Sessions forfeiture proposal to confiscate property without any criminal charges.
> Its the epitome of big government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another moron joins the fray.
> 
> 
> Bernie Sanders is a communist.
> 
> Communists decry private property to the extent that they starved 10 million men, women and children to death to prove that point.
> 
> 
> Did I mention that you're a moron?
Click to expand...

Do you understand what communism is?  Its where you have a classless society, where everything is owned by everybody.
By contrast, Sanders is a democratic socialist. This is where you have democratic management of economy with emphasis on market socialism.  This system accepts a certain level of inequality, but attempts to keep it at reasonable levels; where there are still classes, but differences between classes arent so extreme.  Under market socialism, you still have support for private property, and you have support for equal opportunity.
Its just a reality these days with growing inequality, the equal opportunity is degraded.


----------



## PoliticalChic

dudmuck said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dudmuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bernie Sander's isnt any threat to private property.
> He's just pushing to move towards something like Scandinavian countries economic setup.
> Instead its Jeff Sessions forfeiture proposal to confiscate property without any criminal charges.
> Its the epitome of big government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another moron joins the fray.
> 
> 
> Bernie Sanders is a communist.
> 
> Communists decry private property to the extent that they starved 10 million men, women and children to death to prove that point.
> 
> 
> Did I mention that you're a moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you understand what communism is?  Its where you have a classless society, where everything is owned by everybody.
> By contrast, Sanders is a democratic socialist. This is where you have democratic management of economy with emphasis on market socialism.  This system accepts a certain level of inequality, but attempts to keep it at reasonable levels; where there are still classes, but differences between classes arent so extreme.  Under market socialism, you still have support for private property, and you have support for equal opportunity.
> Its just a reality these days with growing inequality, the equal opportunity is degraded.
Click to expand...



Back, begging for another lesson???

No prob....


1. " [At] the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party USA. He also organized for a communist front, the United Packinghouse Workers Union, which at the time was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.


2. ...graduating with a political science degree, Sanders moved to Vermont, where he headed the American People’s History Society, an organ for Marxist propaganda. There, he produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs, who was jailed for espionage during the Red Scare and hailed by the Bolsheviks as “America’s greatest Marxist.” Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist | New York Post



But ".... the liberal media elite have suddenly stopped calling him socialist. He’s now cleaned up as a “progressive” or “pragmatist.” NYPost, Op. Cit.


Socialist....communist....and Progressive.....

Distinctions without differences.


3." ... Sanders helped found the Liberty Union Party, which called for the nationalization of all US banks and the public takeover of all private utility companies. [Before Maxine Waters, too!]


... Sanders in 1981 managed to get elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., where he restricted property rights for landlords, set price controls and raised property taxes to pay for communal land trusts. Local small businesses distributed fliers complaining their new mayor “does not believe in free enterprise.”



4. His radical activities didn’t stop at the water’s edge. Sanders took several “goodwill” trips not only to the USSR, but also to Cuba and Nicaragua, where the Soviets were trying to expand their influence in our hemisphere.


In 1985, he traveled to Managua to celebrate the rise to power of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. He called it a “heroic revolution.” Undermining anti-communist US policy, Sanders denounced the Reagan administration’s backing of the Contra rebels in a letter to the Sandinistas.


“The Sandinista government has more support among the Nicaraguan people — substantially more support — than Ronald Reagan has among the American people,” Sanders told Vermont government-access TV in 1985." Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist | New York Post



5. "Sanders also adopted a Soviet sister city outside Moscow and honeymooned with his second wife in *the USSR*. *He put up a Soviet flag in his office,* shocking even the Birkenstock-wearing local liberals. At the time*, the Evil Empire was on the march around the world, and threatening the US with nuclear annihilation.*


Then*, in 1989, as the West was on the verge of winning the Cold War, Sanders addressed the national conference of the US Peace Council — a known front for the Communist Party USA, whose members swore an oath not only to the Soviet Union but to “the triumph of Soviet power in the US.”* Don’t be fooled by Bernie Sanders — he’s a diehard communist | New York Post



6."Today, Sanders wants to bring what he admired in the USSR, Cuba, Nicaragua and other communist states to America.


For starters, he proposes completely nationalizing our health care system and putting private health insurance and drug companies “out of business.” He also wants to break up “big banks” and control the energy industry, while providing “free” college tuition, a “living wage” and guaranteed homeownership and jobs through massive public works projects.


Price tag: $18 trillion.


Who will pay for it all? You will. Sanders plans to not only soak the rich with a 90 percent-plus tax rate, while charging Wall Street a “speculation tax,” but hit every American with a “global-warming tax.”


Of course, even that wouldn’t cover the cost of his communist schemes; a President Sanders would eventually soak the middle class he claims to champion. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?


QED, Bernie Sanders, communist.


If you'd like a lesson on why the difference between socialism and Bolshevism is a difference without a distinction, don't hesitate to whine....er, ask.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
> They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.


Who are these 'some' people who shrug at the 100 million slaughtered?  They need to be shot!


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
> They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are these 'some' people who shrug at the 100 million slaughtered?  They need to be shot!
Click to expand...



When I pointed out that his antecedents, the communists, slaughtered 100 million men, women and children.....this individual sneered at the deaths this way:


"Sure it wasn't 100 billion?"
FDR Admiration Society


You can take it up directly with him.
FDR Admiration Society


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
> They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are these 'some' people who shrug at the 100 million slaughtered?  They need to be shot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I pointed out that his antecedents, the communists, slaughtered 100 million men, women and children.....this individual sneered at the deaths this way:
> 
> 
> "Sure it wasn't 100 billion?"
> FDR Admiration Society
> 
> 
> You can take it up directly with him.
> FDR Admiration Society
Click to expand...

That is weak, even by your standards.  

sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm/
_noun_

the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"
synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, scorn, sneering, scoffing; 
irony; 
cynicism
"well, it's easy to see that she got her biting sarcasm from her mother"


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...there are some who imagine that socialism, communism, Liberalism, would take all of our worries away.
> They shrug at the 100 million slaughtered to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> Who are these 'some' people who shrug at the 100 million slaughtered?  They need to be shot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I pointed out that his antecedents, the communists, slaughtered 100 million men, women and children.....this individual sneered at the deaths this way:
> 
> 
> "Sure it wasn't 100 billion?"
> FDR Admiration Society
> 
> 
> You can take it up directly with him.
> FDR Admiration Society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is weak, even by your standards.
> 
> sar·casm
> ˈsärˌkazəm/
> _noun_
> 
> the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
> "his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment"
> synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, scorn, sneering, scoffing;
> irony;
> cynicism
> "well, it's easy to see that she got her biting sarcasm from her mother"
Click to expand...




You never seem to miss the chance to dissemble.

Dissemble
verb (used with object), dissembled, dissembling.
1.
to give a false or misleading appearance to; conceal the truth or real nature of:



You must be a Liberal, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic

5. As pointed out, every iteration of collectivism is essentially the same...communal property rather than private property.

That means all of these:
Socialism, Liberalism, Nazism, Fascism, Progressivism, and Communism.

But all aren't equally bad, equally harsh....but all have the same fundamental basis: the individual counts for nothing.



One would have imagined that the defenders of the above might have pointed out a pretty good example: the Israeli kibbutz.



 Those who have studied existentialism are familiar with the philosopher Martin Buber.

“In his book _Paths in Utopia_, which remains one of the most powerful critiques of authoritarian _socialism_, he claimed that this movement* [the kibbutz] was one example of a non-authoritarian, libertarian or "utopian" socialism that had not failed.”
https://www.peacenews.info/node/3979/martin-bubers-paths-utopia-kibbutz-experiment-didnt-fail*



Buber spoke too soon.

 Next.


----------



## PoliticalChic

6.The Israeli Kibbutz was an enviable attempt to exhibit the best features of socialism. When Buber wrote the above, it seemed destined to succeed….a utopian society expressing some of the noblest of aspirations.

I had the opportunity to visit the Middle East last summer, and stayed at a hotel that had been a kibbutz, Hotel Hagoshrim.






Visitors were given a lecture by Hannah Levi, who has worked at Hagoshim for over 60 years....*from its communist beginnings to the current, capitalist principles.*

"Israeli Kibbutz transformed from farm to resort."

Israeli Kibbutz transformed from farm to resort





*What happened to the kibbutz is a cautionary tale about socialism/Liberalism itself.*


Next.


----------



## PoliticalChic

7. Communal property rights, e.g., communism…..or socialism via the Liberal ploy, regulation…..is based on a lack of understanding of human nature.

That’s why Marx, Lenin, ….and Hillary Clinton….all claimed that they could change human nature.



The kibbutz was socialism at its finest.

And, a failure.


“On a kibbutz, everyone is equal and no one owns any more, or any less, than anyone else. A kibbutz member dedicates his life to the collective good of the society. Since everyone is equal, all the members rotate jobs, taking a turn at each - cleaning the chicken coop one year, running the front office the next. In return the kibbutz provides for all of the member's needs - food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education for the member's children.

With all needs cared for, the kibbutz theory goes, a member needs to own little money. And so kibbutz members are given a small annual allowance for personal needs ….- no member should own more or live better than any other.

When the day came, as it did to virtually all kibbutzim, that members were no longer willing to crowd around the one television set in the clubhouse, the kibbutz had to buy televisions for every member at the same time. When efficiency apartments were no longer large enough to satisfy members, all at once new apartments had to be built for each family. All of that meant “borrowing large sums of money.” Debts Make Israelis Rethink an Ideal: The Kibbutz


*“In 1989, however, the 3% of the Israeli population then living on the kibbutz had accumulated debts exceeding $4 billion.” * 
Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.50



Not convinced?

Try Venezuela.
*“Venezuelans lose average of 19 lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests”* 
*Economic crisis causes Venezuelans to lose average of 19lb in weight*


----------



## Rigby5

PoliticalChic said:


> ...
> Let's begin with definitions.
> Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
> 
> Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:
> 
> 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
> 2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
> 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
> 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
> 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
> 6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
> 7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
> 8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
> 9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> And, of course*, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.*
> 
> *They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*
> 
> Nazism
> Communism
> Socialism
> Fascism
> Progressivism
> Liberalism
> Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism
> 
> ...



That is pretty much totally wrong.

{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.

{... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

{... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

{... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

{... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this.  Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

{...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms.  And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.

(...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
This is just a repetition of 6 really.

{...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

{... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty.  Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

{...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
And again, this is just a refinement of 9.


----------



## Rigby5

PoliticalChic said:


> 3. A great, if unmentioned,* benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.*
> 
> *…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, *and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.
> 
> Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.
> 
> Indians had no concept of private property:
> 
> "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling *what they didn't possess* to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the *records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."*
> The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money
> 
> 1626  Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24, 1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War.  Peter Minuit (1589-1638)
> 
> And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*



You know that the Native Americans certainly knew all about capitalism.
The MezoAmericans like Aztecs and Incas obviously were capitalistic when the Europeans arrived.  But North Americans had gone through a capitalist phase that failed, and they rejected.  It left remnants like the Mound Builders, the Mississippians, Anasazi, etc.  It just does not work well when technology is primitive and resources limited.


----------



## Rigby5

PoliticalChic said:


> 7. Communal property rights, e.g., communism…..or socialism via the Liberal ploy, regulation…..is based on a lack of understanding of human nature.
> 
> That’s why Marx, Lenin, ….and Hillary Clinton….all claimed that they could change human nature.
> 
> The kibbutz was socialism at its finest.
> 
> And, a failure.
> 
> “On a kibbutz, everyone is equal and no one owns any more, or any less, than anyone else. A kibbutz member dedicates his life to the collective good of the society. Since everyone is equal, all the members rotate jobs, taking a turn at each - cleaning the chicken coop one year, running the front office the next. In return the kibbutz provides for all of the member's needs - food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education for the member's children.
> 
> With all needs cared for, the kibbutz theory goes, a member needs to own little money. And so kibbutz members are given a small annual allowance for personal needs ….- no member should own more or live better than any other.
> 
> When the day came, as it did to virtually all kibbutzim, that members were no longer willing to crowd around the one television set in the clubhouse, the kibbutz had to buy televisions for every member at the same time. When efficiency apartments were no longer large enough to satisfy members, all at once new apartments had to be built for each family. All of that meant “borrowing large sums of money.” Debts Make Israelis Rethink an Ideal: The Kibbutz
> 
> 
> *“In 1989, however, the 3% of the Israeli population then living on the kibbutz had accumulated debts exceeding $4 billion.” *
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.50
> 
> Not convinced?
> 
> Try Venezuela.
> *“Venezuelans lose average of 19 lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests”
> Economic crisis causes Venezuelans to lose average of 19lb in weight*




Not even remotely convinced.
Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, just as Ashrams still succeed in India.
The massive materialism you describe is not normal for humans and instead is a product of European learned culture.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work.   *                                                                          ,


Europeans seem quite happy with their brand of socialism.  The Norwegians seem quite happy to share their oil wealth.

The US is another example.  People seem pleased with Social Security and Medicare.

I'd venture to say that every country that ever existed has aspects of capitalism, socialism, and communism to varying degrees.  It never has been or ever will be an A, B, or C, it will always be D, all the above.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Let's begin with definitions.
> Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
> 
> Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:
> 
> 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
> 2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
> 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
> 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
> 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
> 6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
> 7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
> 8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
> 9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> And, of course*, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.*
> 
> *They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*
> 
> Nazism
> Communism
> Socialism
> Fascism
> Progressivism
> Liberalism
> Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is pretty much totally wrong.
> 
> {... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
> Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.
> 
> {... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
> Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.
> 
> {... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
> And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.
> 
> {... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
> Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.
> 
> {... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
> Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this.  Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.
> 
> {...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
> Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms.  And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.
> 
> (...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
> This is just a repetition of 6 really.
> 
> {...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
> Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.
> 
> {... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
> Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty.  Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.
> 
> {...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
> And again, this is just a refinement of 9.
Click to expand...




"That is pretty much totally wrong."

Nothing I post is wrong in any way.



{... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, suh as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx."


While the French Revolution ‘authorized’ the slaughter of any citizens who didn’t agree with the ‘general will’, both Hitler’s and Stalin’s theses stem from Marx.

"Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung,  in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981 

b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first." George Watson.

c."Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

d. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.


I'll allow you 3 out of ten points on this one.
Not the most auspicious start on the exam.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Let's begin with definitions.
> Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
> 
> Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:
> 
> 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
> 2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
> 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
> 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
> 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
> 6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
> 7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
> 8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
> 9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> And, of course*, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.*
> 
> *They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*
> 
> Nazism
> Communism
> Socialism
> Fascism
> Progressivism
> Liberalism
> Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is pretty much totally wrong.
> 
> {... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
> Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.
> 
> {... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
> Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.
> 
> {... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
> And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.
> 
> {... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
> Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.
> 
> {... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
> Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this.  Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.
> 
> {...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
> Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms.  And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.
> 
> (...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
> This is just a repetition of 6 really.
> 
> {...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
> Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.
> 
> {... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
> Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty.  Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.
> 
> {...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
> And again, this is just a refinement of 9.
Click to expand...



{... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.

*Zero*

{... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.

*Zero*


{... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.

*Zero*

*Perhaps you'd like to offer this bit of offal to the bakers who where fined $135,000 for declining to bake a cake.*
*Egad, have you been in a closet your whole life?????*


*I hope you do better on the rest of the test.*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Let's begin with definitions.
> Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
> 
> Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:
> 
> 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
> 2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
> 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
> 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
> 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
> 6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
> 7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
> 8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
> 9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> And, of course*, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.*
> 
> *They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*
> 
> Nazism
> Communism
> Socialism
> Fascism
> Progressivism
> Liberalism
> Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is pretty much totally wrong.
> 
> {... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
> Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.
> 
> {... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
> Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.
> 
> {... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
> And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.
> 
> {... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
> Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.
> 
> {... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
> Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this.  Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.
> 
> {...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
> Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms.  And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.
> 
> (...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
> This is just a repetition of 6 really.
> 
> {...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
> Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.
> 
> {... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
> Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty.  Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.
> 
> {...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
> And again, this is just a refinement of 9.
Click to expand...





{... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this. Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.

*Zero*


{...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms. And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.
*Zero*
*
*
(...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
This is just a repetition of 6 really.

*Zero*
*


*


----------



## PoliticalChic

{...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.

{... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty. Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.

{...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
And again, this is just a refinement of 9.


And.....three more zeros.


You are truly an embarrassment as a student....although, for government schooling, indoctrination....you are the poster child.



Your remediation begins immediately....with Powers' book.


I'm certain that a nice adult will help you get a library card.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. A great, if unmentioned,* benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.*
> 
> *…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, *and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.
> 
> Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.
> 
> Indians had no concept of private property:
> 
> "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling *what they didn't possess* to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the *records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."*
> The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money
> 
> 1626  Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24, 1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War.  Peter Minuit (1589-1638)
> 
> And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that the Native Americans certainly knew all about capitalism.
> The MezoAmericans like Aztecs and Incas obviously were capitalistic when the Europeans arrived.  But North Americans had gone through a capitalist phase that failed, and they rejected.  It left remnants like the Mound Builders, the Mississippians, Anasazi, etc.  It just does not work well when technology is primitive and resources limited.
Click to expand...




Read more carefully this time, you dunce:

3. A great, if unmentioned,* benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.*

*…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, *and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.

Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.



Indians had no concept of private property:

"One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling *what they didn't possess* to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the *records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."*
The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money


1626 Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24,1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War. Peter Minuit (1589-1638)



And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Here, on this continent, i*t was the arrival of the Europeans that induced the Indians to give up communal property rights for private property rights.*



“In his article “*Towards a theory of property rights”* Harold Demsetz shows by a historic example of the Montagnes Indians t*he impact of private property. *It demonstrates the different behaviours in cases with and without private property rights, how private property solves negative externalities and the role of coordination by changing individuals’ behaviour.

The Montagnes Indians had no restrictions on hunting (=> open-access common property good). 

…* when the colonists started in the 18th century to inquire beaver furs from the Indians, the value of the beaver increased *to such an extent, that the onset of intensification of hunting led to a decline in the beaver population (= negative externality).

Everyone hunted as much as he could and nobody cared about the sustainability of the beaver population. The benefit/revenue of each animal was individual for the hunter, but the costs of the stock decline had the community as a whole (= tragedy of the commons).

*The Montagnes Indians successfully solved the problem by the allocation of individual territories on the families* (= exactly defined property right), so that individual incentives appeared to plan for the long term under consideration of the beaver population. Consequently the negative externality was remedied and the individuals’ behavior purposely changed by property rights (Demsetz, 1967: 351 – 354).” Property rights



Need it be said that an established law, not the law of the jungle, is a corollary to private property rights?
Except when Leftist take power, and do what the Nazis did to private property rights:

"It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that *most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.*

What Mises identified was that *private ownership of the means of production existed in name onlyunder the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. *For it was _the German government_ and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the _substantive powers of ownership_: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian


Just like Liberalism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Communal property rights, e.g., communism…..or socialism via the Liberal ploy, regulation…..is based on a lack of understanding of human nature.
> 
> That’s why Marx, Lenin, ….and Hillary Clinton….all claimed that they could change human nature.
> 
> The kibbutz was socialism at its finest.
> 
> And, a failure.
> 
> “On a kibbutz, everyone is equal and no one owns any more, or any less, than anyone else. A kibbutz member dedicates his life to the collective good of the society. Since everyone is equal, all the members rotate jobs, taking a turn at each - cleaning the chicken coop one year, running the front office the next. In return the kibbutz provides for all of the member's needs - food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education for the member's children.
> 
> With all needs cared for, the kibbutz theory goes, a member needs to own little money. And so kibbutz members are given a small annual allowance for personal needs ….- no member should own more or live better than any other.
> 
> When the day came, as it did to virtually all kibbutzim, that members were no longer willing to crowd around the one television set in the clubhouse, the kibbutz had to buy televisions for every member at the same time. When efficiency apartments were no longer large enough to satisfy members, all at once new apartments had to be built for each family. All of that meant “borrowing large sums of money.” Debts Make Israelis Rethink an Ideal: The Kibbutz
> 
> 
> *“In 1989, however, the 3% of the Israeli population then living on the kibbutz had accumulated debts exceeding $4 billion.” *
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.50
> 
> Not convinced?
> 
> Try Venezuela.
> *“Venezuelans lose average of 19 lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests”
> Economic crisis causes Venezuelans to lose average of 19lb in weight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even remotely convinced.
> Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, just as Ashrams still succeed in India.
> The massive materialism you describe is not normal for humans and instead is a product of European learned culture.
Click to expand...


"Not even remotely convinced.
Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, ..."

You represent the typical cannon fodder turned out by government schooling: the indoctrination is indelible.

You are too weak and too lazy to break out of it.

These six are, each and every one, based on bending the knee and the neck to the collective:
Socialism, Progressivism, Communism, Liberalism, Fascism and Nazism.

None are based on this:
1.    In Thoreau’s _On the duty of Civil Disobedience,_ he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”

You haven't read that, have you.
That's your next assignment.


2. The kibbutz movement ended when individualism became more important than the collective.

"The kibbutz movement continued to thrive both economically and socially through the 1960s and ’70s. In 1989, the population of Israel’s kibbutzim reached its peak at 129,000 people living on 270 kibbutzim, about 2 percent of Israel’s population.

But high inflation and interest rates led to economic crisis for many kibbutzim. In the 1980s and ’90s, many kibbutzim declared bankruptcy and thousands of kibbutz members defected. In keeping with *an increasing trend of individualism* in Israel and world-wide, these former kibbutz members sought new opportunities in Israeli cities, and some left Israel altogether."
The Kibbutz Movement | My Jewish Learning


----------



## Moonglow

Thank God the Papal state has total freedom and liberty, since it's so conservative....Hahahahahahahahahahahah


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. A great, if unmentioned,* benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.*
> 
> *…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, *and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.
> 
> Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.
> 
> Indians had no concept of private property:
> 
> "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling *what they didn't possess* to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the *records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."*
> The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money
> 
> 1626  Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24, 1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War.  Peter Minuit (1589-1638)
> 
> And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that the Native Americans certainly knew all about capitalism.
> The MezoAmericans like Aztecs and Incas obviously were capitalistic when the Europeans arrived.  But North Americans had gone through a capitalist phase that failed, and they rejected.  It left remnants like the Mound Builders, the Mississippians, Anasazi, etc.  It just does not work well when technology is primitive and resources limited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more carefully this time, you dunce:
> 
> 3. A great, if unmentioned,* benefit of European settlement of America was the bringing of the concept of capitalism to the Indians, stone age peoples of the continent.*
> 
> *…prior to the arrival of the colonials, American's prior colonists, the Indians had no concept of private property, *and it's meaning in advancing the liberty and prosperity of all.
> 
> Exploration and settlement by Europeans changed all that.
> 
> 
> 
> Indians had no concept of private property:
> 
> "One popular history of Manhattan notes that the Canarsie Indians "dwelt on Long Island, merely trading on Manhattan, and their trickery [in selling *what they didn't possess* to the Dutch] made it necessary for the white man to buy part of the island over again from the tribes living near Washington Heights. Still more crafty were the Raritans of [Staten Island], for the *records show that Staten Island was sold by these Indians no less than six times."*
> The Straight Dope How much would the 24 paid for Manhattan be worth in today s money
> 
> 
> 1626 Peter Minuit purchased the island of Manhattan from the Canarsee Native Americans on May 24,1626. However, the Canarsee were actually native to Brooklyn, while Manhattan was home instead to the Weckquaesgeek,(Wappnai) who were not pleased by the exchange and later battled the Dutch in Kieft's War. Peter Minuit (1589-1638)
> 
> 
> 
> And because they had no concept of private property, *Indians regularly killed the animals that they hunted to the point of extinction.*
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4. Here, on this continent, i*t was the arrival of the Europeans that induced the Indians to give up communal property rights for private property rights.*
> 
> 
> 
> “In his article “*Towards a theory of property rights”* Harold Demsetz shows by a historic example of the Montagnes Indians t*he impact of private property. *It demonstrates the different behaviours in cases with and without private property rights, how private property solves negative externalities and the role of coordination by changing individuals’ behaviour.
> 
> The Montagnes Indians had no restrictions on hunting (=> open-access common property good).
> 
> …* when the colonists started in the 18th century to inquire beaver furs from the Indians, the value of the beaver increased *to such an extent, that the onset of intensification of hunting led to a decline in the beaver population (= negative externality).
> 
> Everyone hunted as much as he could and nobody cared about the sustainability of the beaver population. The benefit/revenue of each animal was individual for the hunter, but the costs of the stock decline had the community as a whole (= tragedy of the commons).
> 
> *The Montagnes Indians successfully solved the problem by the allocation of individual territories on the families* (= exactly defined property right), so that individual incentives appeared to plan for the long term under consideration of the beaver population. Consequently the negative externality was remedied and the individuals’ behavior purposely changed by property rights (Demsetz, 1967: 351 – 354).” Property rights
> 
> 
> 
> Need it be said that an established law, not the law of the jungle, is a corollary to private property rights?
> Except when Leftist take power, and do what the Nazis did to private property rights:
> 
> "It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that *most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.*
> 
> What Mises identified was that *private ownership of the means of production existed in name onlyunder the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. *For it was _the German government_ and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the _substantive powers of ownership_: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
> Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
> 
> 
> Just like Liberalism.
Click to expand...

Capitalism which included slavery...What a concept...of Christians


----------



## Rigby5

PoliticalChic said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Let's begin with definitions.
> Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
> 
> Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:
> 
> 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
> 2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
> 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
> 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
> 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
> 6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
> 7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
> 8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
> 9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> And, of course*, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.*
> 
> *They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*
> 
> Nazism
> Communism
> Socialism
> Fascism
> Progressivism
> Liberalism
> Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is pretty much totally wrong.
> 
> {... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
> Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.
> 
> {... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
> Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.
> 
> {... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
> And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.
> 
> {... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
> Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.
> 
> {... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
> Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this.  Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.
> 
> {...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
> Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms.  And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.
> 
> (...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
> This is just a repetition of 6 really.
> 
> {...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
> Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.
> 
> {... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
> Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty.  Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.
> 
> {...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
> And again, this is just a refinement of 9.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "That is pretty much totally wrong."
> 
> Nothing I post is wrong in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> {... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
> Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, suh as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx."
> 
> 
> While the French Revolution ‘authorized’ the slaughter of any citizens who didn’t agree with the ‘general will’, both Hitler’s and Stalin’s theses stem from Marx.
> 
> "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung,  in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.
> 
> a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981
> 
> b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first." George Watson.
> 
> c."Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> d. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 
> I'll allow you 3 out of ten points on this one.
> Not the most auspicious start on the exam.
Click to expand...


I disagree.

1. Hitler had no interest or connection to Karl Marx at all, and his may opponents were the Spartacus League that were followers of Marx.  All of Hitler's propaganda was totally anti-Marxist, and he gained all his support from the aristocracy, the military, and industrialists, by always being anti-Marxist.  And Stalin was actually anti-Marxist as well.  While Stalin claimed to be a Marixst, he murdered all the real Marxists, and prevented communal benefits, so was not really Marxist at all.  How many people are murdered is not a sign of Marxism and Marxism has nothing to do with murdering people.  Claims that he supported mass murder or genocide are just ridiculous.  He was anti war and anti capital punishment.
Communalism of an elite at the cost of the general public, is not really communalism at all.


----------



## Rigby5

PoliticalChic said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Communal property rights, e.g., communism…..or socialism via the Liberal ploy, regulation…..is based on a lack of understanding of human nature.
> 
> That’s why Marx, Lenin, ….and Hillary Clinton….all claimed that they could change human nature.
> 
> The kibbutz was socialism at its finest.
> 
> And, a failure.
> 
> “On a kibbutz, everyone is equal and no one owns any more, or any less, than anyone else. A kibbutz member dedicates his life to the collective good of the society. Since everyone is equal, all the members rotate jobs, taking a turn at each - cleaning the chicken coop one year, running the front office the next. In return the kibbutz provides for all of the member's needs - food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education for the member's children.
> 
> With all needs cared for, the kibbutz theory goes, a member needs to own little money. And so kibbutz members are given a small annual allowance for personal needs ….- no member should own more or live better than any other.
> 
> When the day came, as it did to virtually all kibbutzim, that members were no longer willing to crowd around the one television set in the clubhouse, the kibbutz had to buy televisions for every member at the same time. When efficiency apartments were no longer large enough to satisfy members, all at once new apartments had to be built for each family. All of that meant “borrowing large sums of money.” Debts Make Israelis Rethink an Ideal: The Kibbutz
> 
> 
> *“In 1989, however, the 3% of the Israeli population then living on the kibbutz had accumulated debts exceeding $4 billion.” *
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.50
> 
> Not convinced?
> 
> Try Venezuela.
> *“Venezuelans lose average of 19 lb in weight due to nationwide food shortages, study suggests”
> Economic crisis causes Venezuelans to lose average of 19lb in weight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even remotely convinced.
> Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, just as Ashrams still succeed in India.
> The massive materialism you describe is not normal for humans and instead is a product of European learned culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Not even remotely convinced.
> Kibbutzim still succeed in Israel, ..."
> 
> You represent the typical cannon fodder turned out by government schooling: the indoctrination is indelible.
> 
> You are too weak and too lazy to break out of it.
> 
> These six are, each and every one, based on bending the knee and the neck to the collective:
> Socialism, Progressivism, Communism, Liberalism, Fascism and Nazism.
> 
> None are based on this:
> 1.    In Thoreau’s _On the duty of Civil Disobedience,_ he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”
> 
> You haven't read that, have you.
> That's your next assignment.
> 
> 
> 2. The kibbutz movement ended when individualism became more important than the collective.
> 
> "The kibbutz movement continued to thrive both economically and socially through the 1960s and ’70s. In 1989, the population of Israel’s kibbutzim reached its peak at 129,000 people living on 270 kibbutzim, about 2 percent of Israel’s population.
> 
> But high inflation and interest rates led to economic crisis for many kibbutzim. In the 1980s and ’90s, many kibbutzim declared bankruptcy and thousands of kibbutz members defected. In keeping with *an increasing trend of individualism* in Israel and world-wide, these former kibbutz members sought new opportunities in Israeli cities, and some left Israel altogether."
> The Kibbutz Movement | My Jewish Learning
Click to expand...


I disagree.
First of all, it was not kibbuztim that failed in Israel, but ones that were based on agricultural collectives.  
Agriculture is too hard of work and does not pay well enough.  So many left for urban opportunities that paid better.
It has nothing to do with individualism, because individuals gain their main satisfaction from others.
So communalism is the inherent goal of individuals.

Of course Thoreau is correct that individual rights are the only source of all authority, but individuals are inherently social.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> Let's begin with definitions.
> Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....
> 
> Here is a little quiz that will show just how truly ignorant you are:
> 
> 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
> 2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
> 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
> 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
> 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
> 6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
> 7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
> 8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life
> 9. Which restricts free speech and thought?
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> And, of course*, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.*
> 
> *They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*
> 
> Nazism
> Communism
> Socialism
> Fascism
> Progressivism
> Liberalism
> Communism and Nazism and Fascism are all forms of socialism.....as is modern Liberalism...and Progressivism
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is pretty much totally wrong.
> 
> {... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
> Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, such as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx.
> 
> {... 2. Which is a form of command and control big government? ...}
> Obviously none of them do, since they tend to be either economic systems or simply factions, so have very little to do with any scale description of government or totalitarianism.
> 
> {... 3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies? ....}
> And again obviously none of them, because things like genocide are a question of ethical values, and have nothing to do with economics or politics.
> 
> {... 4. Which is based on the collective over the individual? ...}
> Since you are trying to group them all together, and clearly Nazism, Communism, Socialism, and Fascism tend to have collective concerns while liberalism and progressivism are strictly oriented on the rights of individuals, the conflict is again obvious.
> 
> {... 5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)..}
> Clearly only fascism and nazism have deliberately done this.  Russia and China were state capitalism and never communist, and even they did not intend massive starvation, but were merely incompetent.
> 
> {...6. Which represents totalitarian governance? ...}
> Nazism, communism, socialism, and fascism are economic systems, so have nothing really do to with governance, which is political decision making mechanisms.  And while liberalism and progressivism are related to governance, they are the opposite of totalitarianism, and closer to anarchism.
> 
> (...7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative? ...}
> This is just a repetition of 6 really.
> 
> {...8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life. ...}
> Only Fascism and Nazism approach a strong central state power.
> 
> {... 9. Which restricts free speech and thought? ...}
> Again, only Fascism and Nazism try to influence individual liberty.  Liberalism and Progressivism are the exact opposite.
> 
> {...10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”. ...}
> And again, this is just a refinement of 9.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "That is pretty much totally wrong."
> 
> Nothing I post is wrong in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> {... 1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx? ...}
> Actually none of them do, since Karl Marx only refers to communism, but since communism already existed, suh as during the French Revolution, it could not stem from Karl Marx."
> 
> 
> While the French Revolution ‘authorized’ the slaughter of any citizens who didn’t agree with the ‘general will’, both Hitler’s and Stalin’s theses stem from Marx.
> 
> "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung,  in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.
> 
> a. "The classes and races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way...they must perish in the revolutionary holocaust." Karl Marx, People's Paper, April 16, 1856, Journal of the History of Idea, 1981
> 
> b. "Before Marx, no other European thinker publically advocated racial extermination. He was the first." George Watson.
> 
> c."Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> d. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 
> I'll allow you 3 out of ten points on this one.
> Not the most auspicious start on the exam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> 1. Hitler had no interest or connection to Karl Marx at all, and his may opponents were the Spartacus League that were followers of Marx.  All of Hitler's propaganda was totally anti-Marxist, and he gained all his support from the aristocracy, the military, and industrialists, by always being anti-Marxist.  And Stalin was actually anti-Marxist as well.  While Stalin claimed to be a Marixst, he murdered all the real Marxists, and" prevented communal benefits, so was not really Marxist at all.  How many people are murdered is not a sign of Marxism and Marxism has nothing to do with murdering people.  Claims that he supported mass murder or genocide are just ridiculous.  He was anti war and anti capital punishment.
> Communalism of an elite at the cost of the general public, is not really communalism at all.
Click to expand...


"I disagree."


But I just proved that what I wrote is correct, and that you are as dumb as asphalt.

After your truly abysmal performance on the test? Well….there can be only one reason: you’ve come to recognize how ignorant you are, and are asking for my help. And, as a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal….I’ll do just that.


Sadly, education requires actual work, study, anathema to your sort.

But....here is your opportunity to dig your way out of a lifetime of ignorance.


As one eventually becomes weary of having the dull, the uneducated, the ignorant, offer what they consider rebuff to intelligent and informed posts, and in the interests of better debate milieu.....I strongly suggest that no Leftists.....e.g., Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Progressive, or Fascist.....
....nor any combination or permutation of same, embarrass themselves by offering any post until such time that they complete a study of these three works:


*1. "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline," *
*by Robert H. Bork*


*2. "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,"*
*by Jonah Goldberg*

*3. "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character,"*
*by Diana West*



They provide the context for the world you live in.

And, please do study the vast and scholarly documentation provided in each tome.





Without having digested the three above, and carefully decided whether they are correct or not, your posts reek of stupidity and a lack of understanding.

I mean that in only the kindest way.


I fully understand the difficulties that this course (pun intended) of action entails....
...as elucidated by the great mind herself...

"Liberals don’t read books- they don’t read anything. That’s why they’re liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter




But!!!

Having completed the above assignment, you will find that your experience.....and mine....here on the board will be greatly enhanced.

Begin immediately!!!

Forthwith!!!!!!


----------



## Rigby5

PoliticalChic said:


> ...
> 
> "I disagree."
> 
> 
> But I just proved that what I wrote is correct, and that you are as dumb as asphalt.
> 
> After your truly abysmal performance on the test? Well….there can be only one reason: you’ve come to recognize how ignorant you are, and are asking for my help. And, as a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal….I’ll do just that.
> 
> 
> Sadly, education requires actual work, study, anathema to your sort.
> 
> But....here is your opportunity to dig your way out of a lifetime of ignorance.
> 
> 
> As one eventually becomes weary of having the dull, the uneducated, the ignorant, offer what they consider rebuff to intelligent and informed posts, and in the interests of better debate milieu.....I strongly suggest that no Leftists.....e.g., Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Progressive, or Fascist.....
> ....nor any combination or permutation of same, embarrass themselves by offering any post until such time that they complete a study of these three works:
> 
> *1. "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline," *
> *by Robert H. Bork*
> 
> 
> *2. "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,"*
> *by Jonah Goldberg*
> 
> *3. "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character,"*
> *by Diana West*
> 
> They provide the context for the world you live in.
> 
> And, please do study the vast and scholarly documentation provided in each tome.
> 
> Without having digested the three above, and carefully decided whether they are correct or not, your posts reek of stupidity and a lack of understanding.
> 
> I mean that in only the kindest way.
> 
> 
> I fully understand the difficulties that this course (pun intended) of action entails....
> ...as elucidated by the great mind herself...
> 
> "Liberals don’t read books- they don’t read anything. That’s why they’re liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
> Coulter
> 
> But!!!
> 
> Having completed the above assignment, you will find that your experience.....and mine....here on the board will be greatly enhanced.
> 
> Begin immediately!!!
> 
> Forthwith!!!!!!



Of course I will try to read these and appreciate the suggestions. 
But I have to warn you that I have read Karl Marx, and know that he was anti-war and anti-capital punishment.
His background was that of the military for the aristocracy, and he was disgusted by the brutality of imperialism and colonialism.  His political views were more similar to an anarchist, with a minimalist government, that he felt would not have to be coercive once in line with inherent human nature.  He was not a centralist or totalitarian in any way.

Having grown up in Wisconsin, the homeland of the Progressive Party, I can also tell you that progressives are not at all anti private property or industry, and instead felt one of the important roles of government was to help make industries more productive and efficient, in non-competitive ways.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> "I disagree."
> 
> 
> But I just proved that what I wrote is correct, and that you are as dumb as asphalt.
> 
> After your truly abysmal performance on the test? Well….there can be only one reason: you’ve come to recognize how ignorant you are, and are asking for my help. And, as a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal….I’ll do just that.
> 
> 
> Sadly, education requires actual work, study, anathema to your sort.
> 
> But....here is your opportunity to dig your way out of a lifetime of ignorance.
> 
> 
> As one eventually becomes weary of having the dull, the uneducated, the ignorant, offer what they consider rebuff to intelligent and informed posts, and in the interests of better debate milieu.....I strongly suggest that no Leftists.....e.g., Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Progressive, or Fascist.....
> ....nor any combination or permutation of same, embarrass themselves by offering any post until such time that they complete a study of these three works:
> 
> *1. "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline," *
> *by Robert H. Bork*
> 
> 
> *2. "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,"*
> *by Jonah Goldberg*
> 
> *3. "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character,"*
> *by Diana West*
> 
> They provide the context for the world you live in.
> 
> And, please do study the vast and scholarly documentation provided in each tome.
> 
> Without having digested the three above, and carefully decided whether they are correct or not, your posts reek of stupidity and a lack of understanding.
> 
> I mean that in only the kindest way.
> 
> 
> I fully understand the difficulties that this course (pun intended) of action entails....
> ...as elucidated by the great mind herself...
> 
> "Liberals don’t read books- they don’t read anything. That’s why they’re liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
> Coulter
> 
> But!!!
> 
> Having completed the above assignment, you will find that your experience.....and mine....here on the board will be greatly enhanced.
> 
> Begin immediately!!!
> 
> Forthwith!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I will try to read these and appreciate the suggestions.
> But I have to warn you that I have read Karl Marx, and know that he was anti-war and anti-capital punishment.
> His background was that of the military for the aristocracy, and he was disgusted by the brutality of imperialism and colonialism.  His political views were more similar to an anarchist, with a minimalist government, that he felt would not have to be coercive once in line with inherent human nature.  He was not a centralist or totalitarian in any way.
> 
> Having grown up in Wisconsin, the homeland of the Progressive Party, I can also tell you that progressives are not at all anti private property or industry, and instead felt one of the important roles of government was to help make industries more productive and efficient, in non-competitive ways.
Click to expand...



"Of course I will try to read these and appreciate the suggestions. "


Excellent!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> "I disagree."
> 
> 
> But I just proved that what I wrote is correct, and that you are as dumb as asphalt.
> 
> After your truly abysmal performance on the test? Well….there can be only one reason: you’ve come to recognize how ignorant you are, and are asking for my help. And, as a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to educate a Liberal….I’ll do just that.
> 
> 
> Sadly, education requires actual work, study, anathema to your sort.
> 
> But....here is your opportunity to dig your way out of a lifetime of ignorance.
> 
> 
> As one eventually becomes weary of having the dull, the uneducated, the ignorant, offer what they consider rebuff to intelligent and informed posts, and in the interests of better debate milieu.....I strongly suggest that no Leftists.....e.g., Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Progressive, or Fascist.....
> ....nor any combination or permutation of same, embarrass themselves by offering any post until such time that they complete a study of these three works:
> 
> *1. "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline," *
> *by Robert H. Bork*
> 
> 
> *2. "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,"*
> *by Jonah Goldberg*
> 
> *3. "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character,"*
> *by Diana West*
> 
> They provide the context for the world you live in.
> 
> And, please do study the vast and scholarly documentation provided in each tome.
> 
> Without having digested the three above, and carefully decided whether they are correct or not, your posts reek of stupidity and a lack of understanding.
> 
> I mean that in only the kindest way.
> 
> 
> I fully understand the difficulties that this course (pun intended) of action entails....
> ...as elucidated by the great mind herself...
> 
> "Liberals don’t read books- they don’t read anything. That’s why they’re liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
> Coulter
> 
> But!!!
> 
> Having completed the above assignment, you will find that your experience.....and mine....here on the board will be greatly enhanced.
> 
> Begin immediately!!!
> 
> Forthwith!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I will try to read these and appreciate the suggestions.
> But I have to warn you that I have read Karl Marx, and know that he was anti-war and anti-capital punishment.
> His background was that of the military for the aristocracy, and he was disgusted by the brutality of imperialism and colonialism.  His political views were more similar to an anarchist, with a minimalist government, that he felt would not have to be coercive once in line with inherent human nature.  He was not a centralist or totalitarian in any way.
> 
> Having grown up in Wisconsin, the homeland of the Progressive Party, I can also tell you that progressives are not at all anti private property or industry, and instead felt one of the important roles of government was to help make industries more productive and efficient, in non-competitive ways.
Click to expand...




 "Progressive Party, I can also tell you that progressives....blah blah blah...."


Let us not gloss over the facts.
Progressives are as unattached to the sacredness of human life as Bolsheviks, Liberals, etc.




In fact, Progressives are the basis for many Nazi programs.

*The American and German eugenics movements were one in 'the identification of human beings as valuable, worthless, or of inferior value in supposedly hereditary terms.' *As one authority has noted, this 'was the common denominator of all forms of Nazi racism.'

Eugenics was synonymous with 'race hygiene,' and its most fundamental program was to purify the 'race' of 'low grade' and 'degenerate' groups. Thus, American and European eugenicists created a generic racism and sexism - the genetically inferior.

Not surprisingly, the victims always turned out to be the traditional victims of racism - Jews, Blacks, women, and the poor."
Giesela Bock, 'Racism and Sexism in Nazi Germany,'_Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society,_Vol. 8, no. 3, Spring 1983. Reprinted in Renate Bridenthal et. al.,_When Biology Became Destiny:Women in Weimar and Nazi Germany_(New York, 1984), p. 276.


Progressives, Liberals, Democrats authorized the idea of *a 'Master Race' *long before Hitler did.
...:*"the Master Race."

Hitler studied American eugenics laws.*...
Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics



Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his“The Case for Sterilization.”
(Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)

*German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*



One more proof of my earlier post, point out that none of the totalitarian....collectivist...ideologies value the individual.


----------



## Tax Man

sedwin said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.
> 
> Alas, there hardly ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work.   *                                                                          ,
> 
> 
> 2. Want to know where communal, living works out?
> 
> “…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.
> 
> Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.
> 
> Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.
> 
> 
> 
> And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"  Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism.  Was Stalin evil?  Yes.  Were Hitler and Mussolini evil?  Yes.  The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.
Click to expand...

The odd thing is that there are no laws against possession of things. That is PC biggest problem, Someday she may even be correct.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Tax Man said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.
> 
> Alas, there hardly ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work.   *                                                                          ,
> 
> 
> 2. Want to know where communal, living works out?
> 
> “…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.
> 
> Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.
> 
> Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.
> 
> 
> 
> And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"  Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism.  Was Stalin evil?  Yes.  Were Hitler and Mussolini evil?  Yes.  The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The odd thing is that there are no laws against possession of things. That is PC biggest problem, Someday she may even be correct.
Click to expand...




"... there are no laws against possession of things."

Ah, but there are, ExLaxMan


They're called *regulations.*

Huge numbers of them are totally bogus, and are meant to deprive owners of private property the rights of ownership.
That's why this President can remove them without any damage to society.


Let’s understand* the character of ‘private property.’*

In an influential essay published in 1961, Professor Tony Honore of Oxford wrote this description of private property:

*‘The most important are the rights to use the thing and to exclude others from doing so, to alter its physical configuration, to enjoy its fruits, including its income, and, not the least, to transfer the title of ownership to another.

And, ownership means much the same thing in different legal systems.’         *                           Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p. 19





Does Liberal government deprive the individual of actual ownership, i.e., theft?

*You betcha’!!*



Now....let's see how* Liberals, disguised as 'environmentalists,' deprive owners of their private property rights:*

*The Spotted Owl campaign,* as is so very many other environmental campaigns,  a deceit. It is a way of advancing the real agenda, confiscating property, making land off-limit, and eliminating any human presence. No matter the cost. No matter the result.
“Look, I don’t doubt that the regulatory process that we put in place to produce the environmental goods that we want have taken a toll on the economy generally and the rural economy in particular. Telling the story that rural communities are being harmed may tug at the heartstrings of rural people, but no one else will care.
You see, what the sage grouse is about is, they want to stop drilling in beautiful Wyoming. That’s *the hidden agenda…*.Take the spotted owl case….One of the people instrumental in shutting down the  forests told me that* ‘if the spotted owl hadn’t existed, we would have had to invent it.’* The goal was to stop logging….It is totally questionable whether owls were endangered by logging. Was it good for the overall health of the forest? Probably not. Was it good for the spotted owl? It probably didn’t make a difference. Did it hurt the overall economies of the West? Yes.”                          Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.129.



See how you have been played for a fool, ExLaxMan????


Oh...wait!
You are a fool!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Tax Man said:


> sedwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I post this sort of *attack on the pillars of Liberalism,* I hope there is some sort of intelligent disagreement….you know, debate in the marketplace of ideas.
> 
> Alas, there hardly ever is.
> 
> 
> 
> Soooo….let me propose an answer, suggest *where socialism does work.   *                                                                          ,
> 
> 
> 2. Want to know where communal, living works out?
> 
> “…communal property has not been the undoing of *the traditional family,* even though nonproductive children enjoy a free ride at t expense of their parents….Family ties are strong enough to defuse the sense of injustice that is so corrosive when free riding occurs in more distantly related groups.
> 
> Small children are, in any event, helpless, and parents don’t mind being ‘exploited’ by them.
> 
> Even so, parental policing becomes indispensable as children grow up. Furthermore, families are small enough to make such policing possible. *In a family of four with two children, there is one cop per potential robber.”*
> Tom Bethell, “The Noblest Triumph,” p.45
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t worry….Uncle Bernie won’t be living with you…..He’ll have his own dacha.
> 
> 
> 
> And attacks on the "pillars" of conservatism?"  Communism is the extreme result of liberalism whereas fascism is the extreme result of conservatism.  Was Stalin evil?  Yes.  Were Hitler and Mussolini evil?  Yes.  The lesson is if you are FAR right or left you are on the path to evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The odd thing is that there are no laws against possession of things. That is PC biggest problem, Someday she may even be correct.
Click to expand...




Please be sure to write soon, ExLaxMan.....it is both so simple and so enjoyable, smashing a verbal custard pie in your kisser!


----------

