Socialism. your thoughts?

[Anonymouse]

what about the group of americans that didnt vote for bush? hes still their president.

Do you see me support Bush or voting? No.

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.

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.

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.

[ArmenianKid]

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.

[Anonymouse]

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.

[winoman]

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...

[Anonymouse]

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".

[ArmenianKid]

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.

[winoman]

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).

[Anonymouse]

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.

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?

[ArmenianKid]

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.

[Anonymouse]

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.