Socialism and the purpose of government

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Nothing can ever make socialism work. A healthy society is a free society, which means it doesn't impose socialism on its members.

I disagree. The complete absence of free will can make socialism work.

The problem is that socialists naively believe that socialism and free will can co-exist.

Bear with me for a second.

Going to back to the Gauls and Native Americans.

We are told they are a version of anarchy, but are they not examples of socialism in its most pure form? Or as close as humans have ever come to it?

No.

At it roots socialism is when means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the community as a whole. True socialism is not about government, it is not about government force.

Government is the only means "the community" has for regulating production, distribution, and exchange. What if someone doesn't want to produce what the community tells him to produce?

The native Americans shared all that had with the tribe, when they hunted they hunted for the tribe, they grew crops for the tribe. Everyone contributed something to the community as a whole.

That's total bullshit. The plains Indians didn't believe you could own the land. They treated it as a free resource. Each brave hunted for his family, not for the tribe. However, for tribes that practiced agriculture, like the Iroquois, they definitely believe in private property. Each family had its own plot. They didn't farm the land communally.

Communism has never worked, and that's what you're claiming the Indians practiced.

No, I am claiming the Indians practiced socialism, not communism. communism is governmental ownership of everything.

When the Indians hunted they hunted in parties for the tribe, not for each individual in the hunting party. Treating something as a free resource is exactly what true socialism is all about, there is no private ownership.

This is also why it has never worked, human nature does not work that way.

More bullshit. Do you ever check any of the idiocies you spout before you post them?

You're describing communism: communal ownership of everything.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Why do you assume I am against such a thing?

That's not the point.

The point is that instead of making an argument for an all-powerful central government, you are simply telling us to accept the shit we are given and never try an improve it. Or, that's how it is coming off. Either way, it adds nothing to this discussion.

.

When have you, living in the U.S., been limited to just the 'Shit you are given'?

SERIOUSLY!

You are apparently living in a paranoid delusion!

 

[Oddball]

View attachment 259049

If you use U.S. dollars then you are consenting to pay taxes.

Otherwise you are free not to accept or offer U.S. dollars in your transactions.

Horseshit. The government forces you to use its phony money. It has outlawed all the other choices.

No it hasn't. There are towns that print their own currency. Super market coupons are a form of currency. Banks print teller's checks.There are lots and lots of forms of currency. You can print you own notes any time you want.

U.S. dollars are just a government note.

Like I said...You have NFI what you're blabbering about, and prove it with every post.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Bear with me for a second.

Going to back to the Gauls and Native Americans.

We are told they are a version of anarchy, but are they not examples of socialism in its most pure form? Or as close as humans have ever come to it?

Isn't my family a form of socialism too? My wife and I earn money, but the kids don't. They rely on me and we all share the house and resources.

What makes the family situation different?

At it roots socialism is when means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the community as a whole. True socialism is not about government, it is not about government force.

True socialism requires a family bond. That's about the only way it will work.

And family bonds can be broken where I don't have to share with someone that I don't like.

The native Americans shared all that had with the tribe, when they hunted they hunted for the tribe, they grew crops for the tribe. Everyone contributed something to the community as a whole.

Tribe = Family

Compare that to forced, inescapable socialism commanded by an all-powerful government.

The are not even on the same planet. That is apples to zebras.

 

[Edgetho]

No, I am claiming the Indians practiced socialism, not communism. communism is governmental ownership of everything.

When the Indians hunted they hunted in parties for the tribe, not for each individual in the hunting party. Treating something as a free resource is exactly what true socialism is all about, there is no private ownership.

This is also why it has never worked, human nature does not work that way.

Whenever you're around, the intellectual level of a conversation just always seems to take a shit.

American Indians were communal tribesmen.

Now, see if there is a beginning of the derivative of a word you might be looking for in there.

Besides, American Indians were among the stupidest people to ever exist on this planet. They had no concept of the wheel, no beasts of burden, no animal husbandry, no agriculture to speak of, had institutionalized cannibalism, treated their women like dogs, practiced a form of medicine consisting of chants and poisonous herbs,could barely speak any kind of language, ran around half-naked most of the time and had the life-expectancy of a modern farm animal

Typical communists. Stupid beyond belief.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And now the problem is those powers are less and less divided and are becoming more consolidated under the executive branch.

...which gained way too much power 150+ years ago and continues to gain such power, contrary to the intent of the founders.

Solution?

Either blow that shit up and start over or get that bitch under control.

.

 

[Oddball]

If your idea of being a 'rare talent' is being a great thief, then no, you can not exploit that talent.

What do you mean by "great thief"?

Government (the greatest of all thieves) should not be allowed to exploit its talent? I agree.

The French rights-of-man documents says something like:

People should be free to do what they like up to the point that their freedom infringes on other people rights. That's where their freedom ends.

Well, I agree with that statement.

You obviously don't.

.

In the world of the commie, both property and wages are "theft"....And they ridiculously attempt to make a distinction between "private property" and "personal property".

Dullards like Richard are Randian and Orwellian antagonist stereotypes come to life.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, I am claiming the Indians practiced socialism, not communism. communism is governmental ownership of everything.

When the Indians hunted they hunted in parties for the tribe, not for each individual in the hunting party. Treating something as a free resource is exactly what true socialism is all about, there is no private ownership.

This is also why it has never worked, human nature does not work that way.

Bingo.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Bear with me for a second.

Going to back to the Gauls and Native Americans.

We are told they are a version of anarchy, but are they not examples of socialism in its most pure form? Or as close as humans have ever come to it?

Isn't my family a form of socialism too? My wife and I earn money, but the kids don't. They rely on me and we all share the house and resources.

What makes the family situation different?

At it roots socialism is when means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned or regulated by the community as a whole. True socialism is not about government, it is not about government force.

True socialism requires a family bond. That's about the only way it will work.

And family bonds can be broken where I don't have to share with someone that I don't like.

The native Americans shared all that had with the tribe, when they hunted they hunted for the tribe, they grew crops for the tribe. Everyone contributed something to the community as a whole.

Tribe = Family

Compare that to forced, inescapable socialism commanded by an all-powerful government.

The are not even on the same planet. That apples to zebras.

But what is on the planet and what is commanded by an all-powerful government can never be socialism, which is why it will never work.

 

[bripat9643]

Even if it didn't fix the hole in the boat, that wouldn't stop me from killing the guy who made the hole.

and this is anarchy in its purest form, it is always "might makes right" and survival of the fittest.

If you have land that I want and I have more guns than you, then there is nothing about anarchy that would stop that from happening, or even want to stop that from happening.

We aren't all in a lifeboat, moron. Lifeboat ethics aren't applicable to everyday life. Many theorists have investigated how an anarchist society would work. There are lots of ways to keep it from happening. In Medieval England, the King didn't enforce laws against murder and theft, so how did the people keep from murdering each other? It's called "common law." read about it instead of demonstrating your ignorance.

How To Have Law Without Legislation | Murray N. Rothbard

 

[Hum Dinger]

The question should be 'how', not 'who'. It can be determined by simple equations. Any University has mathematicians that could figure it out for any company.

I have an easier way that is time-tested and proven to be the only real, fair way to figure the value of one's labor.

The free market.

See, the value of one's labor is determined by what another person is willing to pay. If nobody wants to pay a dime for your work, it is worthless.

It's like figuring out the value of a 5-bedroom, 4500 square foot house. It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If nobody is willing to pay $4 million dollars for it, guess what? IT AIN'T WORTH $4 MILLION DOLLARS.

.

You're living in the 18th century.

No body ever WANTS to pay a cent for anything. It doesn't matter how valuable the work is, people WANT to pay NOTHING.

They only pay what they are FORCED to pay according to the law and the 'free market'. If left up to the free market alone, there would be huge incentive to pay people as little as possible - the more desperate people are the less they will accept.

Employers have a vested interest in keeping people impoverished.

 

[Oddball]

...which gained way too much power 150+ years ago and continues to gain such power, contrary to the intent of the founders.

Solution?

Either blow that shit up and start over or get that bitch under control.

.

 

[Oddball]

The question should be 'how', not 'who'. It can be determined by simple equations. Any University has mathematicians that could figure it out for any company.

I have an easier way that is time-tested and proven to be the only real, fair way to figure the value of one's labor.

The free market.

See, the value of one's labor is determined by what another person is willing to pay. If nobody wants to pay a dime for your work, it is worthless.

It's like figuring out the value of a 5-bedroom, 4500 square foot house. It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If nobody is willing to pay $4 million dollars for it, guess what? IT AIN'T WORTH $4 MILLION DOLLARS.

.

You're living in the 18th century.

No body ever WANTS to pay a cent for anything. It doesn't matter how valuable the work is, people WANT to pay NOTHING.

They only pay what they are FORCED to pay according to the law and the 'free market'. If left up to the free market alone, there would be huge incentive to pay people as little as possible - the more desperate people are the less they will accept.

Employers have a vested interest in keeping people impoverished.

 

[Oddball]

Even if it didn't fix the hole in the boat, that wouldn't stop me from killing the guy who made the hole.

and this is anarchy in its purest form, it is always "might makes right" and survival of the fittest.

If you have land that I want and I have more guns than you, then there is nothing about anarchy that would stop that from happening, or even want to stop that from happening.

We aren't all in a lifeboat, moron. Lifeboat ethics aren't applicable to everyday life. Many theorists have investigated how an anarchist society would work. There are lots of ways to keep it from happening. In Medieval England, the Kind didn't enforce laws against murder and theft, so how did the people keep from murdering each other? It's called "common law." read about it instead of demonstrating your ignorance.

How To Have Law Without Legislation | Murray N. Rothbard

Now we move to lifeboat ethics!

Gomer is an even bigger authoritarian goon than I had imagined!

 

[Hum Dinger]

I remember when my cable bill was $10 a month and promised it would stay there because of the free market.

How did I miss this hilarious little gem?

Remember when cable didn't exist? How the hell did we get cable in the first place?

Remember when cable was really limited in content? How the hell did we finally get ESPN?

Remember when our government kept printing money and $10 wouldn't buy shit anymore?

Remember when a new car cost $300. Remember when inflation made a new car cost 10,000 times that much.

But, also, remember when a new car only went about 20mph? Remember when a new car had no air bags or other safety features and still cost less than the cars that cost $300 (because of that whole inflation thing)?

THAT GODDAMN FREE MARKET SCREWED US AGAIN!!!

When cable was new they said we'd have no commercials because everyone was paying for it!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We aren't all in a lifeboat, moron. Lifeboat ethics aren't applicable to everyday life. Many theorists have investigated how an anarchist society would work. There are lots of ways to keep it from happening. In Medieval England, the King didn't enforce laws against murder and theft, so how did the people keep from murdering each other? It's called "common law." read about it instead of demonstrating your ignorance.

How To Have Law Without Legislation | Murray N. Rothbard

That was not anarchy though, so it does not apply.

You cannot have anarchy when there is an authority involved.

 

[bripat9643]

The question should be 'how', not 'who'. It can be determined by simple equations. Any University has mathematicians that could figure it out for any company.

I have an easier way that is time-tested and proven to be the only real, fair way to figure the value of one's labor.

The free market.

See, the value of one's labor is determined by what another person is willing to pay. If nobody wants to pay a dime for your work, it is worthless.

It's like figuring out the value of a 5-bedroom, 4500 square foot house. It is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If nobody is willing to pay $4 million dollars for it, guess what? IT AIN'T WORTH $4 MILLION DOLLARS.

.

You're living in the 18th century.

No body ever WANTS to pay a cent for anything. It doesn't matter how valuable the work is, people WANT to pay NOTHING.

They only pay what they are FORCED to pay according to the law and the 'free market'. If left up to the free market alone, there would be huge incentive to pay people as little as possible - the more desperate people are the less they will accept.

Employers have a vested interest in keeping people impoverished.

You're spewing the same old Marxist bologna that was proven wrong over 100 years ago.

 

[bripat9643]

We aren't all in a lifeboat, moron. Lifeboat ethics aren't applicable to everyday life. Many theorists have investigated how an anarchist society would work. There are lots of ways to keep it from happening. In Medieval England, the King didn't enforce laws against murder and theft, so how did the people keep from murdering each other? It's called "common law." read about it instead of demonstrating your ignorance.

How To Have Law Without Legislation | Murray N. Rothbard

That was not anarchy though, so it does not apply.

You cannot have anarchy when there is an authority involved.

There was no government as far as laws government the common people were concerned. There was no police force to arrest thieves and murderers. It was as close to anarchy as you can get.

 

[bripat9643]

Even if it didn't fix the hole in the boat, that wouldn't stop me from killing the guy who made the hole.

and this is anarchy in its purest form, it is always "might makes right" and survival of the fittest.

If you have land that I want and I have more guns than you, then there is nothing about anarchy that would stop that from happening, or even want to stop that from happening.

We aren't all in a lifeboat, moron. Lifeboat ethics aren't applicable to everyday life. Many theorists have investigated how an anarchist society would work. There are lots of ways to keep it from happening. In Medieval England, the Kind didn't enforce laws against murder and theft, so how did the people keep from murdering each other? It's called "common law." read about it instead of demonstrating your ignorance.

How To Have Law Without Legislation | Murray N. Rothbard

Now we move to lifeboat ethics!

Gomer is an even bigger authoritarian goon than I had imagined!

Yep, he believes all the shallow and already debunked arguments that the dumbest of statists are familiar with.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There was no government as far as laws government the common people were concerned. There was no police force to arrest thieves and murderers. It was as close to anarchy as you can get.

No, you can get much closer to anarchy, you can have an actual lack of any authority.