Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Socialism. your thoughts?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by ArmenianKid
    what about the group of americans that didnt vote for bush? hes still their president.
    Do you see me support Bush or voting? No.

    Originally posted by ArmenianKid
    any and all governments care about hte majority not the minority.
    Precisely Jr. Now you are learning something. All governments, even socialist ones, are a tyranny by the majority of the minority, the individual. Such is always the case when we have collectivism and mass mindedness, and people who associate with the above.

    Originally posted by ArmenianKid
    i said once again a democratic socialist government. canada has the government i have been trying to talk about this whole dam time.
    Canada is the same government of majority pressuring minority.

    Originally posted by ArmenianKid
    if the majoity votes for the redistribuation of wealth then the minority must follow. its how all governments are.
    So in other words, if someone does not want to follow the "will of the majority" then they, as an individual shall pay the price. So you support the use of violence to murder and steal from individuals. How profound. A socialist kid and already lacking in the ethical field.
    Achkerov kute.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by Anonymouse
      Do you see me support Bush or voting? No.



      Precisely Jr. Now you are learning something. All governments, even socialist ones, are a tyranny by the majority of the minority, the individual. Such is always the case when we have collectivism and mass mindedness, and people who associate with the above.



      Canada is the same government of majority pressuring minority.



      So in other words, if someone does not want to follow the "will of the majority" then they, as an individual shall pay the price. So you support the use of violence to murder and steal from individuals. How profound. A socialist kid and already lacking in the ethical field.

      i never said anything about murder.
      no matter how opressive governments around the world are we still have to deal with it, i relized that fact along time ago. eveyr country oppresses someone, its a fact of life.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by ArmenianKid
        i never said anything about murder.
        no matter how opressive governments around the world are we still have to deal with it, i relized that fact along time ago. eveyr country oppresses someone, its a fact of life.
        Government's oppress, precisely. You know that. So thereby you are okay with opressing. Just because government's oppress does not make it ethical. I have always maintained there is not much difference between criminals and socialists and it seems to be proving true.
        Achkerov kute.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by Anonymouse
          Government's oppress, precisely. You know that. So thereby you are okay with opressing. Just because government's oppress does not make it ethical. I have always maintained there is not much difference between criminals and socialists and it seems to be proving true.
          Yeah lets turn "law and order" over to Enron... ..right...you really need to get out more...

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by winoman
            Yeah lets turn "law and order" over to Enron... ..right...you really need to get out more...
            Enron was a government created monopoly Mr. "You need to get out more".
            Achkerov kute.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by Anonymouse
              Government's oppress, precisely. You know that. So thereby you are okay with opressing. Just because government's oppress does not make it ethical. I have always maintained there is not much difference between criminals and socialists and it seems to be proving true.

              dont call me a criminal. oppression is a fact of life that cant be stoped, theres no use in even thinking you can because its impossiible. i would like to hear the great utopian government u want mouse, because it sounds like ur a anarcist and if thats so you have no right to call me a criminal.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by Anonymouse
                Enron was a government created monopoly Mr. "You need to get out more".
                OK fine - replace it with Exon, or General Motors, or how about one of those Savings and Loans that took everyones money a few years back?...or whatever...your idea is still inconceivable (not at all based in the reality of how the world functions ad what is likely or possible) - unless you are an extreme elitist who cares not a wit for the great bulk of humanity (and even then just how does one get to this ideal of yours from where we are now? eh?).

                As deficient as governments are - there is no real workable alternative (that any have yet proposed) - and the "WIld West" just ain't it (and this would be obvious for anyone who truly lives in the rreal world and has had to function and deal with things outside of going to school and living in their mommy's basement). So we try to make the best with what we've got - and there is plenty that can be improved and plenty of worthwhile endevors to make things better - for oneself and for others. And Rothbard - (or whoever wrote that piece that was supposed to answer critics of anarchy) - really didn't convince - at all - in fact it was poorly presented (I could have done better IMO).

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by winoman
                  OK fine - replace it with Exon, or General Motors, or how about one of those Savings and Loans that took everyones money a few years back?...or whatever...your idea is still inconceivable (not at all based in the reality of how the world functions ad what is likely or possible) - unless you are an extreme elitist who cares not a wit for the great bulk of humanity (and even then just how does one get to this ideal of yours from where we are now? eh?).
                  You seem to be confused. I do not like elitists. Elitists are statists, and those whom you support that believe they have the right to tell other people how to live. As far as the savings and loans crisis, do you forget that it was largely the result of another government venture into the free market by the form of a government created and backed corporation called Fannie Mae? That's a real good example of why government is inefficient.


                  Originally posted by winoman
                  As deficient as governments are - there is no real workable alternative (that any have yet proposed) - and the "WIld West" just ain't it (and this would be obvious for anyone who truly lives in the rreal world and has had to function and deal with things outside of going to school and living in their mommy's basement). So we try to make the best with what we've got - and there is plenty that can be improved and plenty of worthwhile endevors to make things better - for oneself and for others. And Rothbard - (or whoever wrote that piece that was supposed to answer critics of anarchy) - really didn't convince - at all - in fact it was poorly presented (I could have done better IMO).
                  The alternative is simple - it is little to no government, and privatizing everything. The wild west only proved that society can and did exist without a central ruling authority. Furthermore, America was in a near state of anarchy under the Articles of Confederation, prior to the coup detat of the Constitutionalists. As far as anarchy "not working" you seem to be missing the point constantly jammering that "it can't work". This isn't a political system based on controlling the lives of individuals by central authority. As Stephen Kinsella mentioned, which I posted earlier:

                  Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

                  Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

                  Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

                  As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression – the initiation of force against innocent victims – is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?
                  Achkerov kute.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by Anonymouse
                    You seem to be confused. I do not like elitists. Elitists are statists, and those whom you support that believe they have the right to tell other people how to live. As far as the savings and loans crisis, do you forget that it was largely the result of another government venture into the free market by the form of a government created and backed corporation called Fannie Mae? That's a real good example of why government is inefficient.




                    The alternative is simple - it is little to no government, and privatizing everything. The wild west only proved that society can and did exist without a central ruling authority. Furthermore, America was in a near state of anarchy under the Articles of Confederation, prior to the coup detat of the Constitutionalists. As far as anarchy "not working" you seem to be missing the point constantly jammering that "it can't work". This isn't a political system based on controlling the lives of individuals by central authority. As Stephen Kinsella mentioned, which I posted earlier:

                    Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

                    Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

                    Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

                    As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression – the initiation of force against innocent victims – is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?

                    u think socalism cant work. when everyone knows anarchy cant work. with anarchy there is meanless bloodshed and crime. just like the wild west, people were guned down all the time gangland style. if u want a world with a abundance of crime, murder and theivery your on the right track.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by ArmenianKid
                      u think socalism cant work. when everyone knows anarchy cant work. with anarchy there is meanless bloodshed and crime. just like the wild west, people were guned down all the time gangland style. if u want a world with a abundance of crime, murder and theivery your on the right track.
                      Did you even read that post or the previous posts where the wild west issue was specifically addressed? Or are you just spouting opinionated jargon because that's what socialists/statists do. You have no idea what anarchy means aside from media spoon fed image. The Wild West was not as wild as you think. Just read the posts, that has already been refuted. Your beloved socialist utopia won't come to be since you admitted that people must be forced to socialize as opposed to being anything voluntary. Not only do you lack in reading the posts of the relevant topic before responding but you also lack ethics.
                      Achkerov kute.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X