I support communism

[The Elf]

So, I'm sitting here eating some cheap candy and thinking to myself.. You know, who am I to dictate how other people live their lives. Most of these ideals that communists preach on about, regardless of whether I see the merits, would work just as well in a business environment as in govt. That is to say, should you want to start a bakery or what not and run it in a communist fashion, pay all your employees the same and whatever, that'd be fine by me.

[Riley]

I don't see how someone can be communist and believe that they shouldn't tell other people how to run their lives. I have a major problem with communism whether it be in the government or businesses because it would be very hard for me to do twice the work as another person or be doing my job twice as well and be paid the same amount as somebody else.

[emetib]

communism? check it out-

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/gulag/
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/d2presid.html

these are just a few of the nicer examples of it. check out 'the black book of communism' for some other nice commentary and history of it.

[The Elf]

I would agree, except if it's a business that is trying to use the communist model you don't have to work there. So, I support voluntary communism. Does the lack of businesses doing this say anything?

[Strogian]

A lot of things would be "fine with me." But, what's the point in paying everybody the same?

[Syntaxis]

that'd be fine by me.
We're glad you approve. :D

However, I have to say that the communist philosophy (as invisioned by Marx) is best summed up in "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" which is rather different than simply paying everyone the same.

[The Elf]

That makes sense. So, pay the employees with kids more than those without kids. Is that a better understanding?

[Whipping Boy]

No one's saying that, in a capitalist society, you can't try to live by communist ideas. I think that anyone who would try is not just a fool but the epitome of evil, but nonetheless you have that right.

That's another reason why capitalism is vastly preferable to cmmunism, incidentally. In capitalism, if for some incredible reason you prefer communist living, you're free to live by those ideals and find others who wish to live like you and interact with them, as long as you don't try to force the rest of us, who don't want to live like you, to live like you. The same can't be said if you switch around the "communism" and "capitalism".

[mocnicom]

Capitalism can best be described as heartless, while communism is best described as brainless.

[GeekGuy]

Originally posted by mocnicom
Capitalism can best be described as heartless, while communism is best described as brainless.

How did I know that a thread like this was going to pop-up?

Interesting description. Seems adequate enough.

ALL political parties depend on one fact though: the common man is incapable of thinking for himself, therefore must be led by an elite few known as politicians.

Politics of any kind seems to be the only thing that stands between humans and utopia.

*sigh*

:(

[Whipping Boy]

Actually, capitalism in its pure form require that each individual think for himself, and decide for himself what is in his own best interests. Which is the beauty of it--you are responsible for your own livelihood and in fact your own life.

[GeekGuy]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Actually, capitalism in its pure form require that each individual think for himself, and decide for himself what is in his own best interests. Which is the beauty of it--you are responsible for your own livelihood and in fact your own life.

Yes, in its pure form, I agree with you.

Unfortuneately it also cranks out homeless and needy just as fast as a bad Monarchy can.

It does all fall back on the people - some can't think, therefore end up in bad situations (ok, treachery has a hand in some of it), therefore need social programs, which uses politics, around the circle ad nauseum.

A population in its pure form doesn't need politics or systems of government. If people are capable of behaving and being a law to themselves, we could have anarchy without the destructiveness.

But alas, we are imperfect, so will our various systems, our politicians, etc.

Hey I just answered a question I had in the back of my head without realizing it. No, I won't tell what it is :p ;)

[dogn00dles]

Originally posted by emetib
communism? check it out-

http://www.osa.ceu.hu/gulag/
http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/d2presid.html

these are just a few of the nicer examples of it. check out 'the black book of communism' for some other nice commentary and history of it.

You mean totalitarianism? Communism is an extremely developed form of socialism, in which the government eventually erodes away, leaving a classless society. Most people will agree that communism, at least according to Marx and Engels' ideas, has never been tried full-scale (at least not without the CIA ovethrowing it...), though it seems to work well in self-sufficient communities.

[dogn00dles]

Originally posted by GeekGuy
Yes, in its pure form, I agree with you.

Unfortuneately it also cranks out homeless and needy just as fast as a bad Monarchy can.

It does all fall back on the people - some can't think, therefore end up in bad situations (ok, treachery has a hand in some of it), therefore need social programs, which uses politics, around the circle ad nauseum.

A population in its pure form doesn't need politics or systems of government. If people are capable of behaving and being a law to themselves, we could have anarchy without the destructiveness.

But alas, we are imperfect, so will our various systems, our politicians, etc.

Hey I just answered a question I had in the back of my head without realizing it. No, I won't tell what it is :p ;)

So do I. This seems more like feudalism though.

"The wealthiest 5 percent of the population rules the American people by daily increasing margins — the latest figures claim that
segment controls 60 percent of wealth, according to Washington, D.C., nonprofit group Citizen Works, which was founded by Ralph
Nader. The top 1 percent controls 38.1 percent of the money.

The average Ken Lay sort, the greedy executive and administrative decision-maker usually holding the title of chief executive officer,
makes 531 times more than the entry-level employee."

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by GeekGuy

Unfortuneately it also cranks out homeless and needy just as fast as a bad Monarchy can.

That's just too damn bad. You and you alone are responsible for yourself--not society. If you can't take care of yourself, that's your own problem. If you can find people who will help you of their own accord, more power to you--but your need does not give you the right to deamnd that others take care of you. If it's a congenital condition, it's not your fault--but then, it's not anyone else's fault, either.

There is sufficient private charity right now to take care of the relative few who are truly unable, for reasons completely beyond their control, to take care of themselves. The others who are in a ****hole have no one to blame but themselves--for their laziness, their stupidity, their complacency, their lack of foresightedness, whatever it was. Chances are, whatever position you're in, there's something along the line you could have done to prevent it from happening.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by dogn00dles

The average Ken Lay sort, the greedy executive and administrative decision-maker usually holding the title of chief executive officer,
makes 531 times more than the entry-level employee."

The average corporate exec has earned what he makes, and also has created considerably more wealth than what he has actually been paid.

The amount of wealth is not static.

[Whipping Boy]

One more thing--what's wrong with being greedy? As you don't cause direct physical harm to others or engage in fraud, you have every right to pursue your own self-interest as much as you wish.

[nextbillgates]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Actually, capitalism in its pure form require that each individual think for himself, and decide for himself what is in his own best interests. Which is the beauty of it--you are responsible for your own livelihood and in fact your own life.

That kind of capitalism, much like pure communism, is impossible. The captialism you describe would work great if we had unlimited resources. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

There is only so much land and resources to go around. The land and capital owners compete amongst themselves until there are only a few survivors. Also, as the system progresses on it's course, the barrier to entry for an outsider will become higher and higher until it's impossible to compete. And all that is assuming that the competitors don't violate the law in attempt to get an edge.

Pure capitalism may be good at first, but unhindered, it has only one possible outcome: economic slavery of everyone except the elite few who've won out over all the others.

[dogn00dles]

What about the Indonesian sweatshop workers who get paid 1 dollar a month? They *chose* to work there, right?

[mocnicom]

One of the many problems with current capitalism is that corporations control the government, and use the govenment to push smaller entities (ie: individuals) around. And we pay for the government. This seems more totalitarian or feudal to me than it seems capitalistic. Sure if a corporation succeeds, then by all rights it is powerfull, but this power should not be able to extend into the government, and the government should not hinder individuals on the corporations behalf.

[emus]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
That's just too damn bad. You and you alone are responsible for yourself--not society. If you can't take care of yourself, that's your own problem. If you can find people who will help you of their own accord, more power to you--but your need does not give you the right to deamnd that others take care of you. If it's a congenital condition, it's not your fault--but then, it's not anyone else's fault, either.

There is sufficient private charity right now to take care of the relative few who are truly unable, for reasons completely beyond their control, to take care of themselves. The others who are in a ****hole have no one to blame but themselves--for their laziness, their stupidity, their complacency, their lack of foresightedness, whatever it was. Chances are, whatever position you're in, there's something along the line you could have done to prevent it from happening.

Brave soldier is loyal to his country
He gets shot in the neck fighting to maintain capitalism
Paralysis follows

Now on foresight that is almost being equated to clairvoyance in your post, the logical answer the soldier should receive is: You should have dodged the bullet.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by nextbillgates
That kind of capitalism, much like pure communism, is impossible. The captialism you describe would work great if we had unlimited resources. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

There is only so much land and resources to go around. The land and capital owners compete amongst themselves until there are only a few survivors. Also, as the system progresses on it's course, the barrier to entry for an outsider will become higher and higher until it's impossible to compete. And all that is assuming that the competitors don't violate the law in attempt to get an edge.

Pure capitalism may be good at first, but unhindered, it has only one possible outcome: economic slavery of everyone except the elite few who've won out over all the others.

You don't like your lot? Then one word will solve all your problems:

Work

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by dogn00dles
What about the Indonesian sweatshop workers who get paid 1 dollar a month? They *chose* to work there, right?

As far as I know, they do. Unless someone's holding a gun to their head, they have a choice.

[CyPHer_138]

Communism is great in theory. Unfurtonately it requirers too much discipline and self restraint to ever be truly applied. The closest thing to Marx and Engles vision came through Lennin, who was briliant. I find it ironic that the Chinese thrawt the Tibetan people as they do because they are Buddhist when they are perfect canidates for being the first real communist country because they follow the eight fold path.
This is only my oppinion though.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by mocnicom
One of the many problems with current capitalism is that corporations control the government, and use the govenment to push smaller entities (ie: individuals) around. And we pay for the government. This seems more totalitarian or feudal to me than it seems capitalistic. Sure if a corporation succeeds, then by all rights it is powerfull, but this power should not be able to extend into the government, and the government should not hinder individuals on the corporations behalf.

Which is why government should not be allowed to regulate businesses. If government cannot regulate or provide benefits to certain businesses, then businesses will have no reason to buy off politicians to gain special favors or exemptions.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by emus
Brave soldier is loyal to his country
He gets shot in the neck fighting to maintain capitalism
Paralysis follows

Now on foresight that is almost being equated to clairvoyance in your post, the logical answer the soldier should receive is: You should have dodged the bullet.

Reread my post...

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by CyPHer_138
Communism is great in theory.

No, it's not. Communism rests on the abolition of individualism, personal initiative and risk, free choice, freedom to interact with others on mutually acceptable terms, etc. Not only is it unworkable in practice, but more importantly it is fundamentally evil in theory.

[emus]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Reread my post...

Don't worry I read correctly. He fights on the behalf of the government and is supposed to be looked after by private charity?

Edit: Fighting on behalf of the government or society whichever you like better. There must be an institution that he can rely on to be taken care of.

[nextbillgates]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
You don't like your lot? Then one word will solve all your problems:

Work

Since you obviously didn't read it the first time, I'll post it again.

Pure capitalism may be good at first, but unhindered, it has only one possible outcome: economic slavery of everyone except the elite few who've won out over all the others.

As far as I know, they do. Unless someone's holding a gun to their head, they have a choice.

No one is holding a gun to their head, but if they don't work, they die. Same difference.

No, it's not. Communism rests on the abolition of individualism, personal initiative and risk, free choice, freedom to interact with others on mutually acceptable terms, etc. Not only is it unworkable in practice, but more importantly it is fundamentally evil in theory.

The same can be said for pure capitalism.

[pcghost]

Declare me your despot and I will solve all these problems and disagreements. :D

Sorry, reminising about the good old days when Frith would enter a thread like this and go nuts:D

I admit it I miss the little prick. God I need help....:D

[carlywarly]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Which is why government should not be allowed to regulate businesses. If government cannot regulate or provide benefits to certain businesses, then businesses will have no reason to buy off politicians to gain special favors or exemptions.

So, you are suggesting that there should be no employment laws, as far as I can see. Is that correct?

[glaston]

So nobody believes in responsibility and freedom anymore huh?
I think you guys who say communism isn't so bad are looking through rose colored glasses. Remember that in a communist gov, the gov is free to do as they please, and owes the public no explanation for anything. The media is majorly censored, there's thought policing, strict punishments for small infractions. Major propoganda, strong arming and scare tactics employed by the gov, nobody can own land, everyone gives to the one who can't keep up. and giving to the underdog isn't so bad, as long as it's a temporary thing until the guy gets on his feet.
But this isn't usually the case, as when 1 gets up, another one goes down. You'd always be giving to the underdog.
Mandatory military service. You simply are a piece of property belonging to the government in a communist state.
Yeah, communism is great! All ****s and giggles...

Socialism on the other hand, exists in places where it shouldn't. But that's it's nature. Many situations are inherently socialist. And the line between socialism and communism should be made clear to everyone.
Not that I support socialism in America! No Way!!

[glaston]

The line of resoning is that when you open the door for socialism communism slips in with it.
And communism is the quickest route to tyranny...

[The Ennead IX]

I don't really subscribe to either a communist or capitalist way of life but reminded of something Mr Bishop said in another thread (sorry, can't remember the full quote) I ascribe to my own values since I find they serve me better. As the wonderful Marlene once said "Success in life depends upon your sense of values".

I'm not really having a pop at anyone, just making an observation, but it strikes me as strange when I consider myself and my somewhat heathen views on religion. I earn as much as I can and from that I take what I need for the things that I need and after that i'm pretty easy going and donate when or where I can, if they want to raise my taxes to provide for others who have less then I encourage them to do it, if people can't eke out a living or otherwise fear for their lives then I say "bring them to my country and help them". It kinda reminds me of a quote from Crocodile Dundee (it was repeated here last week) "Me and God? Yeah I reckon we'd be mates" I'm not so sure about the Capitalists though.

[mope]

Originally posted by glaston
The line of resoning is that when you open the door for socialism communism slips in with it.
And communism is the quickest route to tyranny...
...except that your line of reasoning relies upon a fallacious slippery slope argument.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by emus
Don't worry I read correctly. He fights on the behalf of the government and is supposed to be looked after by private charity?

Edit: Fighting on behalf of the government or society whichever you like better. There must be an institution that he can rely on to be taken care of.

That's too bad--no one forced him to go over there and fight. He joined the military of his own accord.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by nextbillgates
Since you obviously didn't read it the first time, I'll post it again.

Pure capitalism may be good at first, but unhindered, it has only one possible outcome: economic slavery of everyone except the elite few who've won out over all the others.

Again, work. If you don't like what you have, work to improve your position. Make it worth the while of your vilified "elite few" to pay you more money.


No one is holding a gun to their head, but if they don't work, they die. Same difference.
Well, yeah. No one has a responsibility to provide you with a living, and at any rate you're free to choose whether you wish to live or die.

The same can be said for pure capitalism.
No, it can't.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by carlywarly
So, you are suggesting that there should be no employment laws, as far as I can see. Is that correct?

Pretty much, yeah.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by The Ennead IX
if they want to raise my taxes to provide for others who have less then I encourage them to do it,

If you don't mind giving your money to lazy bums, that's one thing. But to suggest that you have no problem with forcing others to do the same is a different matter entirely.

[nextbillgates]

Again, work. If you don't like what you have, work to improve your position. Make it worth the while of your vilified "elite few" to pay you more money.

When pure capitalism progresses to the point where the elite few control everything, you no longer have that choice. It's impossible to compete or advance. You are forced to work on their terms if you want to survive.

Well, yeah. No one has a responsibility to provide you with a living, and at any rate you're free to choose whether you wish to live or die.

Slaves could choose between working and dying, too.

No, it can't.

Yes, it can. In a mature pure capitalist society, the elite wield dictatorial power. They can implement whatever rules they want, push whatever products they want, and force people to perform any action or hold a certain belief. Resisting means death, by starvation rather than execution. A pure capitalist system is just as immoral as a communist system. It can work with regulation, though.

[JSeibert]

Whipping Boy - It sounds like you're the whipping boy for big bidness. Either you're just a lobbyist for a big corporation or you skipped history. I'm assuming you're just good ol' ignorant in this case. It sounds like you would have fit in great with some of these former communist & dictatorship states - you seem to support the majority of the population being oppressed for the good of a small ruling elite party.

Theres little difference who is oppressing you. Whether it be the government, large corporations, or Donald Duck himself you're still being oppressed.

[carlywarly]

No employment laws.

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Pretty much, yeah.

Let's follow this up, logically.

1 - should workers have any legal rights, unfair dismissal etc.?

2 - it would then be legal to refuse to employ people on the basis of their sexuality, sex, age, colour of skin, etc.

3 - it's totally moronic, unless, of course, "Pretty much" means something else.......does it?

[The Ennead IX]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
If you don't mind giving your money to lazy bums, that's one thing. But to suggest that you have no problem with forcing others to do the same is a different matter entirely.

It depends on how you interpret things, sadly we all have to make assumptions when posting on a board (and they're usually wrong,lol), but, i'm making the assumption that you are more fortunate than others, as I am myself, and what you're doing is classing all people as the same. It's a sweeping generalisation and not one that I can hold with.

A little of my background; I currently have a reasonable job as a departmental manager at a company that i've been with for 15yrs, prior to that I had probably half a dozen jobs in a short period of time and before that a period of 5 years on what we over here call the dole. I was out looking for a job, I don't consider myself to be lazy as my past 15/17 years shows but for the previous 5, if we hadn't had the welfare state that we have in this country then i'd probably have ended up dead. I screwed up the first few years of my working life through being a dick at school and it's taken until now to get myself back into a reasonable position. That hasn't come through being lazy it has come through the opportunity to make ammends for my mistakes that society and my country have given me. I would not deny that second chance to anyone.

Sure, there are people who are more than willing to abuse the system and would spend their entire life on the dole if given half the chance but there are many who just want a second chance and they must be given it. It is governments responsibility to put in place controls which stop the system being abused but the system must be there or there will come a time when but for a lucky one or two "there but for the grace of God go I" becomes more than a thought.


Have a read of the section "Life in a Textile Factory" @ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Textiles.htm and that tells you what life was like over here not so long ago under the system you're advocating.

[The Elf]

Originally posted by The Ennead IX
It depends on how you interpret things, sadly we all have to make assumptions when posting on a board (and they're usually wrong,lol), but, i'm making the assumption that you are more fortunate than others, as I am myself, and what you're doing is classing all people as the same. It's a sweeping generalisation and not one that I can hold with.

A little of my background; I currently have a reasonable job as a departmental manager at a company that i've been with for 15yrs, prior to that I had probably half a dozen jobs in a short period of time and before that a period of 5 years on what we over here call the dole. I was out looking for a job, I don't consider myself to be lazy as my past 15/17 years shows but for the previous 5, if we hadn't had the welfare state that we have in this country then i'd probably have ended up dead. I screwed up the first few years of my working life through being a dick at school and it's taken until now to get myself back into a reasonable position. That hasn't come through being lazy it has come through the opportunity to make ammends for my mistakes that society and my country have given me. I would not deny that second chance to anyone.

Sure, there are people who are more than willing to abuse the system and would spend their entire life on the dole if given half the chance but there are many who just want a second chance and they must be given it. It is governments responsibility to put in place controls which stop the system being abused but the system must be there or there will come a time when but for a lucky one or two "there but for the grace of God go I" becomes more than a thought.

Whipping boy's point on this matter I tend to agree with. You might support society helping out those less fortuneate, but should people be forced to? When you're out christmas shopping and you see the salvation army santa clause, you have a choice, and that is how it should be I think. If you want to help out the less fortuneate, do so on your terms.

On the other hand, what about some poor guy making 10k a year working fast food, barely scraping by? This poor bloke will doubtful be getting any government aid, not unless he had kids living with him or something -- and in fact, he would be paying taxes which a large percentage would go to pay for people less fortuneate than him (who probably make more than he does a year in government welfare alone.)

Forced donations don't work for everyone..

[The Ennead IX]

Whipping boy's point on this matter I tend to agree with. You might support society helping out those less fortuneate, but should people be forced to?



Personally I think yes since it is how society has worked these many years. We must pay taxes for certain fundamental things and here in the uk that includes welfare. It is a system that has worked for us and many in Europe for quite a while now. The only real question, for me at least, comes in the amount to be given. If we are falling short in the amount of assistance that we can give to those in need, then all things being equal i:e no other area where savings can be made by reallocating contributions, then I have no problem personally with an increase in my taxes as long as that increase is being used in that way and not to finance something less purposeful. An example of what I am trying (and failing) to say is this sort of thing
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/21/nbudg21.xml I am fully behind.


On the other hand,....

It's a good point and again is one that is difficult to deal with. I don't think it is possible to have a system whereby everyone has all the money that they want and never struggles otherwise society would lack motivation. On the other hand, within Europe (I don't know about the US etc) we have a system which is far from flawless but provides the basis for a minimum wage. Within this there should be provision to ensure that a reasonable standard of living can be made even by the lowest paid whist taking into account the tax burden. We also have a system whereby people can be means tested and if there wage falls above the minimum yet below that which they need to survive, they can receive additional help through welfare. The difficulty comes in ensuring that nobody falls through the net. Sadly many currently do.

[carlywarly]

Originally posted by carlywarly
No employment laws.



Let's follow this up, logically.

1 - should workers have any legal rights, unfair dismissal etc.?

2 - it would then be legal to refuse to employ people on the basis of their sexuality, sex, age, colour of skin, etc.

3 - it's totally moronic, unless, of course, "Pretty much" means something else.......does it?

Is this another thread where Whipping Boy's rather large mouth writes a cheque that his rather more modest intellect cannot cash? It wouldn't be the first time. I think we should be told.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by carlywarly
No employment laws.

1 - should workers have any legal rights, unfair dismissal etc.?
No. The employer is paying the bills; therefore, he gets to set the condition of employment.

[QUOTE]2 - it would then be legal to refuse to employ people on the basis of their sexuality, sex, age, colour of skin, etc.
Of course. Again, as the employer is paying the bills, he has every right to set the terms of employment.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by nextbillgates
When pure capitalism progresses to the point where the elite few control everything, you no longer have that choice. It's impossible to compete or advance. You are forced to work on their terms if you want to survive.
Well, that's too bad. As I already said, if you hate it that much then work so hard that it's worth their while to make some concessions to you. If you can't do that, you have no one to blame but themselves.



Slaves could choose between working and dying, too.
In many societies, if a slave committed suicide then his family would be punished.



Yes, it can. In a mature pure capitalist society, the elite wield dictatorial power. They can implement whatever rules they want, push whatever products they want, and force people to perform any action or hold a certain belief. Resisting means death, by starvation rather than execution. A pure capitalist system is just as immoral as a communist system. It can work with regulation, though.

Any individual is free to choose to refuse to deal with them.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by JSeibert
Either you're just a lobbyist for a big corporation or you skipped history.

Neither. I simply have a sense of right and wrong, which apparently most everyone else here lacks.

[nextbillgates]

Any individual is free to choose to refuse to deal with them.

And die? Death is not a choice.

[Whipping Boy]

Yes, it is. For instance, in the locked steel cabinet across the room from me are a three air guns, two .22's, a couple of shotguns, and a rifle. As I often use those guns for target practice and skeet, I know the combination for the lock on it. Now, are you saying that I don't have the choice as to whether or not I want to get up, open the lock, take out one of the guns (probably not the air rifle, since it'd do little more than sting like hell), and blow my head off?

[nextbillgates]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Yes, it is. For instance, in the locked steel cabinet across the room from me are a three air guns, two .22's, a couple of shotguns, and a rifle. As I often use those guns for target practice and skeet, I know the combination for the lock on it. Now, are you saying that I don't have the choice as to whether or not I want to get up, open the lock, take out one of the guns (probably not the air rifle, since it'd do little more than sting like hell), and blow my head off?

You know what I mean. And again, slaves have the "choice" to die as well.

[carlywarly]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Of course. Again, as the employer is paying the bills, he has every right to set the terms of employment.

Which is where, of course you are wrong. In the real world, this doesn't and can't happen. Nor should it. An employer's right to discriminate on arbitrary grounds obviously erodes workers' rights to be treated fairly. Anyone can see that.

Freedom is a double-edged sword, with freedom come responsibilities. Only spoilt little children expect anything else.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by nextbillgates
You know what I mean. And again, slaves have the "choice" to die as well.

Apparently, I don't. Enlighten me.

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by carlywarly
Which is where, of course you are wrong. In the real world, this doesn't and can't happen. Nor should it. An employer's right to discriminate on arbitrary grounds obviously erodes workers' rights to be treated fairly. Anyone can see that.

Freedom is a double-edged sword, with freedom come responsibilities. Only spoilt little children expect anything else.

Unsurprisingly, it is you who are wrong (yet again). You see, if employees of a company do not like a company's policies, they are free to leave that company at any time. If individual members of the public as a whole do not like a company's policies, they are free to refuse to deal with that company. But no one has a right to demand that others change to suit them--that's being spoiled.

[sasKuatch]

As for government control on business, it is impossible for businesses to not have control over the government, because politicians are willing to take green in order to make companies happy. If you eliminate labor laws, you will eliminate the opportunity businesses have in buying politicians, at the price of poor working conditions.

I can't really think of any solution to this. Put control in the hands of politicians, and they get bought out by the businesses, allowing them to abuse it; put the control into the hands of the business and they abuse it; put the control in the hands of people, and they abuse it by making minimum wage $50 dollars an hour. It doesn't work either way.

[The Ennead IX]

To reiterate a previous point, I can't see how any sane individual would wish to return to this (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRdeformities.htm) or even this (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRpunishments.htm) as a way of life (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRaccidents.htm)

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by sasKuatch
As for government control on business, it is impossible for businesses to not have control over the government, because politicians are willing to take green in order to make companies happy. If you eliminate labor laws, you will eliminate the opportunity businesses have in buying politicians, at the price of poor working conditions.

But the end does not justify the means. If the two are mutually exclusive, then a free society is morally superior to a safe society and thus must exist, even if going to work is incredibly dangerous.

[sasKuatch]

Originally posted by The Ennead IX
To reiterate a previous point, I can't see how any sane individual would wish to return to this (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRdeformities.htm) or even this (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRpunishments.htm) as a way of life (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRaccidents.htm)


Why does that site demand a tariff in order to save the contents to disk? That's absolutely one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.:rolleyes:

[cid222]

communism only worked in theory and it could have been disproven in theory because it doesn't really handle a persons desire to become dominant and better than others. You can't really do that when everyone is regarded as equals(in talent and ability).

[carlywarly]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
Unsurprisingly, it is you who are wrong (yet again). You see, if employees of a company do not like a company's policies, they are free to leave that company at any time. If individual members of the public as a whole do not like a company's policies, they are free to refuse to deal with that company. But no one has a right to demand that others change to suit them--that's being spoiled.

Your point is far from clear. Are you suggesting your ideas should be reality, or are reality?

In the real world, there is such a thing as natural justice, fortunately. Consequently, if you revisit this real world, you will find that everyone has a right to expect fair treatment. Therefore, employment laws do exist, or perhaps you are not aware of this fact.

I find your blinkered views of "freedom to discriminate" most childish. Perhaps there is more to your signature than meets the eye. Does the youth protest too much, perhaps?;)

[Whipping Boy]

Originally posted by carlywarly
Your point is far from clear. Are you suggesting your ideas should be reality, or are reality?
They should be. I'm quite aware that employment laws exist--if they didn't exist, I wouldn't be complaining about and trying to change them.

In the real world, there is such a thing as natural justice, fortunately. Consequently, if you revisit this real world, you will find that everyone has a right to expect fair treatment.
You're right. And it's hardly fair to tell someone that he can't make his own decisions as to who to hire and fire and for what reasons on his own property.

[sasKuatch]

If communism is right, then surely anyone who opposes it is wrong, and will be punished in order to protect the common good, no?

[glaston]

mope-...except that your line of reasoning relies upon a fallacious slippery slope argument. Care to elaborate?
I don't see this as the 'slippery slope argument' that many demonrats use. Maybe that's not the one you're reffering to though.
I'm from America! And here we are anti-communism. I don't know where you're from, and I don't care. I'm from the most powerful nation on the planet! And when we say we hate communism, believe it!
I hate communism, socialism, marxism, etc. And I will fight till I have nothing left but my teeth to oppose communism and stop it from coming to my country! It represents all that America ISN'T!

Freedom is a double-edged sword, with freedom come responsibilities. Only spoilt little children expect anything else. Excellent point!! It's all about personal responsibility! And it seems to be a growing trend for people to come up with reasons or ways to avoid that responsibility. To the point where parents bend over backwards to assign blame to any other person or entity, just as long as they don't have to blame their own shortcomings as a parent.

You can all say what you want about America. The fact remains that we are still the most powerful nation to ever grace the face of the planet! And if we were so inclined, we could conquer all foriegn lands. And give you guys a good reason to hate America. Hell, we're already doing that!
I personally support globalism! I think the world would be great if every nation were a democracy. With the US as the noble leader!

Sure, many people would hate that! How does that affect my view on it though!?


Life is survival of the fittest!
And for whatever reason, it's always the losers who whine about things being unfair.
You don't like being the loser? Well, become the winner then! Just quit crying and acting like the world should recognize your tears and adjust to suit you!
I wish we could go back to the good ol days where there was no affirmative action and an employer reserved the right to deny someone employment based on whatever criteria he chose.
But no, now we have every group under the sun claiming to be a minority, and demanding equal rights. Everyones a friggin cry baby these days!
Like with the reperations thing! Man, if blacks are granted reperations, there's gonna be hell to pay! It seems as if all blacks have to do these days is make demands under the race card, and those demands are met. I blame the political correctness that's sweeping the globe. Yeah, it's great for all these ethnic groups to have clubs that white people can't join. But if white people have a club an ethnic person can't join, it becomes a media event, and they're demonized in the eyes of the public. Where's the fair treatment on this?
And somewhere in the US, a whole block of friggin animals is gonna trash their own neighborhood because their upset about it.
Then, who do they look to to clean and rebuild that neighborhood??
Why should people who had nothing to do with slavery, pay blacks that clearly were not slaves?
People have to understand that if the reperations go through, there will be no peace between blacks and whites!

For those who support communism, go to a communist country! See how well you like it there. After arriving back in the states, you'll be literally kissing the ground!

[carlywarly]

Oh yes, the good ole days when you could thrash your damn black slave to death and it was your own darn business. That's what we need to return to. None of this namby-pamby rights malarkey. Who do these whippersnappers think they are? Rights? Only I get rights! Nobody else. I remember when you could pop down to the club, get a whisky and soda knowing there'd be no damn natives or wimmin there. Just who do they think they are..!!??

People with white coats unfortunately cut the post short...........

[The Elf]

Originally posted by carlywarly
Oh yes, the good ole days when you could thrash your damn black slave to death and it was your own darn business. That's what we need to return to. None of this namby-pamby rights malarkey. Who do these whippersnappers think they are? Rights? Only I get rights! Nobody else. I remember when you could pop down to the club, get a whisky and soda knowing there'd be no damn natives or wimmin there. Just who do they think they are..!!??

People with white coats unfortunately cut the post short...........

I support rights, freedom depends on it. You need that right to life (hence no abortion), the right to pursue happiness (pursue mind you), etc.. You don't need a right to a car, a TV, or any commodities. Basically, you deserve the rights to make something of your life, but if you throw it away that's your own damn fault.

[glaston]

People with white coats unfortunately cut the post short........... That's a shame! I have a feeling it would've been excellent! Judging from what there is left of it anyway.

Seriously though. I'm not suggesting going back to slavery, or anything like that. No physical abuse of any kind. These are straw men of your own creation.
It's just becoming clearer and clearer that minorities have the advantage when it comes to employment. They have the advantage when it comes to welfare, they have the advantage when it comes to alot of things. Most of it's cause people fear them playing the race card, and drawing negative attention to a business or something. And the minorities know how to capitalize on these things.
My buddy used to go out with a black girl. After being around her, I noticed things. She was a good person don't get me wrong. I did like her, but she just had the welfare mindstate.
She acted as if everything was free. And didn't make any distinction between needing and wanting. You would often hear "I want" come whining out of her mouth. Her eyes were bigger than her stomach. Always wanting more than she could afford, when it came to cars, whatever.
And it was clear she saw no need to work. Why work for money when the gov will give it to you free?
There are these black dudes who live on my block. During the summer, everyday, when I would come home for lunch, there they'd be sitiing there in the yard or on the porch. Messing around, drinkin beer. They obviously had no jobs. All they did was hang out.
I also have worked with some black people before that were hard working responsible people. So I know that being black or mexican or whatever doesn't make you lazy and a welfare recipient. It's the environment that many minorities grow up in that causes this.
In the case of my friends black girlfriend, it was her mother who instilled these values (or lack thereof).
I'm not saying that I have anything against black people in general. I tend to judge people based on their personality. I do have a problem with a person of any color who thinks the world owes them something! And the fact that more minorities fit into this group isn't a situation that I created.
The country, hell the planet would be so much better off if everyone got what they put into it! That's all I'm saying.
I'm callin it as I see it on this one. If that bothers anyone, then you should think of why.
Don't take it out on the messenger though..

[Whipping Boy]

You know, there's a big difference between holding an individual in bondage and inflicting violence upon that individual without his consent and deciding who to allow on your property, under what terms, and deciding who you'll give your money to.

[carlywarly]

Originally posted by Whipping Boy
You know, there's a big difference between holding an individual in bondage and inflicting violence upon that individual without his consent and deciding who to allow on your property, under what terms, and deciding who you'll give your money to.
- (all said in a patronising politician's voice-over)

Well, thanks, Kurt. Before your helpful post, I thought those two ideas were identical :rolleyes:

[The Ennead IX]

Originally posted by glaston

You can all say what you want about America. The fact remains that we are still the most powerful nation to ever grace the face of the planet! And if we were so inclined, we could conquer all foriegn lands. And give you guys a good reason to hate America. Hell, we're already doing that!
I personally support globalism! I think the world would be great if every nation were a democracy. With the US as the noble leader!
Is this bit serious? Is any of it serious? If it is , forget it, do some research.

Before anyone shouts anti-American, you don't care about 911 etc, please note the following comments are simply rational and not based on emotion.

You're supposed position as most powerful nation is simply that, supposed. You're up there in the top 5, probably top 3 but as to who is #1 that's still a point for debate. Right, lets see how you're going to go on in an attempt to conquer the rest of the world, we'll start with a small little island known as Britain.

How are you going to go about it? You want to come across here then you have a couple of choices. We'll start with from the sea. Forget it. You would need air superiority which you wouldn't get and if you got halfway across here the RN would have wiped out most of your forces before they got close. To travel that distance at that speed would leave you as such a sitting target it would be laughable.

OK so sea is not such a good idea, not to worry you can try from the air. Forget it. you would need air superiority for a start and you wouldn't get it over that distance and your pilots don't have the ability. To move sufficient men and equipment to mount a serious invasion would require an initial number of sorties in the 5000 range including the air support that would be required to give them at least some hope of travelling that distance and getting most here in one piece. Logistically a nightmare and one you're unlikely to to be able to fulfill. Most troops would be dead before they got their or hit the ground.

OK we'll try a missile attack en masse. Forget it. Take a look at a map. The missiles would be only half way across before America was obliterated. It would not be possible to determine what was in the warheads for a start and as soon as those missiles were launched it would be picked up on satellite. Assuming we knew they were targetted at us the retaliatory strike would be instantaneous and would obliterate the US, if we didn't know and we were destroyed by them then again I would say look at a map. Any missile attack on the UK from the US would leave Russia pretty certain that they themselves were the target. Somehow I can't see them sat around waiting to find out if they were going to hit the UK before they launched a counter strike through the assumption they were the target. Result? US obliterated.

So, a large scale missile attack is getting you nowhere we'll try a small scale attack. Forget it. The damage that would be done is not significant enough to put us out of actionj and stop a response. Consider now 911 and the damage that was done by such a small number of people. Can you see US citizens supporting a war where that kind of damage is being done repeatedly 10, 20, 30, 40 times a day? I can't. Even if they did put up with it the damage would be sufficient to make such an impact on the US as to make any world domination attempts laughable. The only way to do a small scale attack of that nature would be to go towards using NBC warheads. Forget it. Any attack of that nature would result in an equivalent response from here that would go a fair way to making the US a desert. Were we to assume for arguments sake that A US NBC attack was succesful then again, look at a map, the fallout would would start dropping all over Europe. Result? US obliterated. The rest of Europe would not stand by watching you destroy their countries.

About the only thing missed out is an attempted ground war. Forget it. Try that over here and as stated before you wouldn't get the air and naval superiority required to manage it. You would be blown out of the water before you got here. Unsupported ground troops would be nothing more than cannon fodder. The US military haven't had sufficient support or training and nor do they have the abilities in the areas required (as your Generals have been trying pointing out to congress ever since Vietnam) to mount a protracted ground war. For the same reason, if you reference the Gulf war, that is why most of the specialist actions were carrioed out by EU forces and specifically British such as the S.A.S and R.A.F. American pilots of the U.S.A.A.C don't have the ability to provide the close ground support needed nor do they have sufficient skill in low level work such as attacking heavily guarded air bases. Again, this is why the R.A.F were used in the Gulf. You're Generals have been protesting these things for years to congress that the US military is placing too much reliance on technology and not enough on traditional methods of warfare. Congress needs to start listening to it's military on matters concerning the military.


So, in a nutshell. You attack a small little island and you get your backsides kickd all the way back to the US, or, you destroy the planet. Either way, not a very good scenario but essentially the reason your politicians continue trying to get support from other nations for any action. You might manage to take out a relatively helpless nation on your own but that's about it. This doesn't just go for the US it goes for any nation, ourselves included. The world needs to work together to survive but it also needs to work together to destroy. Either way arrogant isolationist policies fail.

[Whipping Boy]

Who said we have to invade the UK first? But since you brought it up, here's what I'm thinking:

First off, we don't have to attack from the continental US, or even a US possession. We could, innocuously enough, build an air/naval base on Iceland or even the Faeroe Islands. Then, we get permission from the UK to use their airspace for training missions. We send strategic/heavy bombers (B-2, B-52) all around the North Atlantic, including the UK, for quite a while. The UK probably would give us a lot of leeway here, since (a) they're one of our closest allies, and (b) they have no reason to think we would want to attack them. Finally, one day the attack comes. Since most likely these training runs wouldn't be allowed to be run over cities, there might be a small amount of alarm when a B-2 is first spotted over London (or Liverpool, or Manchester, etc.). But these fears are defused when a quick phone call reassures the Brits that the pilot just got lost and he is being brought back home as quickly as possible. So they're complacent for a few more minutes, which is all the time needed for a B-2 to drop a couple nukes on the largest cities in the UK, which is caught completely off-guard.

Hmm...this would make an interesting subject for another thread.

[The Ennead IX]

At which point America is wiped off the face of the planet by the nukes currently being carried by the Royal Navy, closely followed by the nukes based around the rest of Europe and operated by British troops, not to mention the nukes of other European countries, these countries being a little perturbed at the fallout that's currently blowing across Europe from having dropped those first nukes 20 miles away from the mainland of western Europe. Result? America responds to this response which elicits further response ad infinitum and America and the rest of the world cease to exist. America has the power to do many things but the power is pointless through being unusable which means they have to rely on good old-fashioned co-operation with the rest of the world if they want anything. Otherwise they can go it alone and face economic ruin the same as any other nation would. Fortunately, as is currently being seen with relation to the Kyoto protocol, many of the US states realise your govt hasn't got a clue when it comes to foreign policy and are in the process of sorting out their own agreements (see this weeks copy of New Scientist) irrespective of the govt line.

[timbobagginsii]

I think it's called Mutually Assured Destruction.
Tasty.

[Whipping Boy]

Rejection of the Kyoto protocol was a Good Thing. Kyoto essentially told people that they couldn't run their own affairs as they saw fit.

[The Ennead IX]

"I think it's called Mutually Assured Destruction."
Yep, that's the fella
:)

"Rejection of the Kyoto protocol was a Good Thing"

Well, so far 6 New England states + others are reputedly going against the govt line (that line being the US govt going back on what it originally agreed to do and what Bush confirmed he would do in his pre-election propaganda) and in a couple of weeks there's a bill being put before the senate sponsored by McCain + Liebermann which should make things interesting ... not to mention the one from James Jeffords & Thomas Daschle which should really liven things up. Kyoto may not be too far away.

[sasKuatch]

Oh no, not Daschle... That man is a heap of bile and excrement...

What a hypocrite; he refused to allow logging in Western states that would reduce the fire hazard, while exempting S. Dakota (his state).

[The Elf]

They might make a nice initiative, but it'll never make it through the process. It's one thing to write up a proposition, another to get it passed.

"It's not how you stand by your car, it's how you race your car." .. bah, I just watched f&f again last night, so sowwy. :)