|Previous Thread:||They have now gone too far (White Giant)|
|Next Thread:||Want to buy Plutonium on White Giant (White Giant)|
| Thursday, October 13, 2011 - 11:38 am |
We cant do anything about income tax. But it is revenue for the country so you can spend it increasing citizens welfare.
IFs can be manually managed to increase their profitability, if you have the inclination! Higher paid people pay contributions to the fund, so you could say higher wages and better educated people will contribute to the fund. Also a wealthy pop and really good IF fund paying good dividends will enable citizens to contribute more to the country's health and education costs. I have actually seen countries where the pop contribute more than the cost and so the country makes a profit from the health and education!
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 02:09 am |
a feature allowing domestic policy would be awsome but complex (im on the other end of the spectrum. i want my commie country to be truely commie you know)
| Tuesday, October 25, 2011 - 06:09 am |
Soldier, as a point of correction, pure communism is not about people serving a state etc, it is about common ownership. Dictators set rules about people serving, communism is about people coming together and communally managing. Communism doesn't even need borders of governments.
It is a movement, and can be exploited by others like any other system.
| Monday, October 31, 2011 - 04:35 am |
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
"No!" says the communist, "it belongs to everyone."
Common ownership is bunk. The communist is a parasite that seeks to live of the work of other men. As a parasite, he requires his hosts. There is nothing common about production. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need! Hosts and parasites. Any man of ability to agree to common ownership is a fool, but if he has agreed to be the host to a group of parasites, he deserves what he gets.
Any man is entitled to what he has produced. He is entitled to dispense of his production as he sees fit. If he seeks what he has not produced, he has become a parasite. What should a host do with parasites? They are a drain on his life, on his resources. Parasites must be removed or eliminated.
What right does a man have to life? None, save that right which is gained by productive work. A parasite does not produce; he requires his hosts. Life is not automatic. No hunger feeds itself. No thirst quenches itself. No need fills itself. A need, bare and naked, is meaningless. No parasite has been so insidious as the communist. Everyone must support everyone! Anyone that seeks to benefits from this proposition has become a parasite who creates a wish with no question as to how it may be fulfilled. If he knows how it may be fulfilled, then he knows he is a thief who must take from others which he can't or won't provide for himself. Everyone else becomes the hosts on which these feed. From each according to his ability: the draining of hosts. To each according to his need: the cry of the parasite. What happens should the host refuse to feed the parasite? What? The masses of parasites will rise up and take that which they could not produce! The threat of which is behind every protest. The parasite must be provided with jobs he could not obtain on his own. The parasite must be provided with food he could not obtain on his own. The parasite must be provided with education he could not obtain on his own. The parasite must be provided with healthcare he could not obtain on his own. Who cares how? Everything is justified, just so long as the parasite is kept alive.
What right does a man have to his property? None, save that right which is gained by productive work. If both men agree voluntarily to an exchange, then, well, there is no problem. They both believe the exchange to be beneficial. There is no parasite. Why is a man not entitled to the fruits of his work? He created the thing, whatever it may be, maybe he offered an exchange to someone else to create the thing for him. Regardless, every economic good was created by someone. It took work. It costs his effort, why should a man waste his life working never seeing the full result of his work? Such a man only loses by agreeing to play host to communist parasites. Communism is slavery. Nothing prevents a man from selling himself into slavery, but why should he?
If we accept that men are automatically entitled to life with no understanding of what kind of work is required to support that life, then we may accept communism.
If we accept that men are not entitled to the fruits of their work, then we may accept communism.
If we accept these things, then we may also accept this final truth: why work at all? For the state? For society? For humanity? How does this greatly differ from a dictatorship? How is this not a demand for service to the state? How does the state differ from any instrument a community creates to ensure equal distribution of unequal production? The logic of communism creates parasites.
A better question, why should the parasite be supported if he does not benefit the host? I can see no reason.
Empty words are fine. Any community that attempts to create common ownership without force is harmless. However, it will fail without using violence or the threat of violence to keep its productive members from fleeing. How do you expect men with the most to give not to claim all the fruits of their work and dispense with it as they see fit? Without such men, you'll be merely left with a community of parasites.
| Monday, October 31, 2011 - 04:56 am |
I have refrained from joining in this discussion so far, but I can't listen to such utter rubbish without comment. I'm sorry, Soldier, but you obviously know absolutely nothing about the subject and are simply churning out the propaganda you've swallowed.
Capitalism is based on human nature ... that is to say, greed. Communism, in its ideological form, is based on a denial of greed. Exemplified by Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". You give what you can, and you take what you need. No more, no less.
If you are a financier, creaming the profit from dodgy transactions, do you deserve to live in a big mansion and waste your millions? If you are a single-mother, or disabled, or too old, do you deserve to die because you can't "produce"? Are the children whose parents never earned enough to give them a good education, and who can't get a job, "parasites"? What about the people with mental health issues? Should they be abandoned and left to die? And the people out of a job because of the greedy bankers who destroyed the economy?
Let's face it Soldier, what you are actually advocating here is a long, slow, painful form of euthanasia. Or do you advocate killing them quickly to put them out of their parasitical misery? You know who else tried that?
I am the first to acknowledge that communism doesn't work in practice, but you have to look at the reasons why:
Unfortunately man is, by nature, greedy. Put one greedy man in the middle of a group of unselfish people (ie: communists) and he will stitch them over and take everything they have. Put one unselfish person in the middle of a bunch of greedy people (ie: capitalists) and, no matter how he has helped everyone else, he will die before any of them will give him a dime to keep him alive. The only way communism will ever work is if everyone embraces the ideal and puts aside their greed. Sadly, that will never happen. Especially if people like Soldier rule the world ...
Communist leaders have attempted to enforce a lack of greed on their people and, of course, it has never worked. All that resulted was oppression and those in charge abusing the system to feed their own greed. But that is not the fault of the ideal. It's the fault of man's nature, man's greed.
Never, never blame the ideal for the flaws in our own nature. And never, NEVER place the price of human life below man's greed. That is the flaw in most of the world's capitalist societies.
Hugs and respect
| Monday, October 31, 2011 - 07:39 am |
Cute, dead wrong though.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that unselfishness is good. This is a belief that does not correspond to any fact of existence. You know what that means? It is not true. You've taken it as an article of faith. As with any article of faith, it is entirely divorced from the context of reality, from the concerns of existence.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" No need to cite this. I quoted it myself. I understand the implications. In fact, I've deconstructed the concept for you to lay bare the foundations of communism.
Besides, it is you who are not exercising any intellectual integrity, citing articles of faith such as greed is bad, unselfishness is good.
Let us analyze this again for a moment.
Human nature is rational, meaning that it operates based on reasons. The flaw you speak of is naturally what you consider to be a moral flaw. However, there can be no metaphysical basis of any value system (even given the biological basis of human nature). Unless we would propose a solution to Hume's Razor that sufficiently proves we ought to be unselfish or we ought not be greedy. I'm fairly certain that this is impossible. Anyway, unless we do so, we will essentially be arguing from a point of subjectivity if we presuppose any value system. We are in a position where is no way to postulate inherent flaws in human nature. It is what it is. If we were to attempt to argue moral flaws in human nature, we merely launch an exercise in what would have to be epistemologically subjective. In other words, we would both be right because our knowledge of what is right is correct simply because we believe it. From this standpoint, you can never prove me wrong. So, it would just come down to the raw power of who could enforce their will which naturally creates a contradiction between your view and the implications of itself.
In any case, I assume that we can both agree that at least one of us is correct and the other incorrect. I assume also that we can both agree that contradiction between a value system and its implications means that the value system is incorrect.
Now, may I focus our attention to the essential issue of a good value system in order to demonstrate that our views need not be epistemologically subjective.
First, I don't think it is too much to say that a value system is ontologically subjective which is entirely different than saying it is epistemologically subjective. This entails that the value system itself is what you believe to be true, but not necessarily what is true. This is an important element to reasoning out an understanding of any rudimentary ethical system that cares to acknowledge that people are individuals, with their own beliefs, desires, and goals.
Second, I also don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that the purpose of an ethical value system is to reconcile individual desires with the desires of other individuals... ethics adds an interpersonal aspect to what would other be a purely personal value system. Thus, an ethical value system were it to exist acknowledges that people are individuals living with other individuals. Of course, the question inevitably arises whether or not one man's value system should or should not reconcile itself with those of other men. Now, this goes back to whether Hume's Razor can be solved. Now, I don't know if it can be solved period. Many much more intelligent men have attempted with far less than satisfactory results (you can read many articles on the ought-is problem). I'd rather side step this problem and assume for a second that there is no ontologically objective code of ethics, but this does leave something if you were paying attention earlier: the possibility of an ontologically intersubjective value system - in other words, a value system that is correct due to being non-contradictory with any ontologically subjective values (which are epistemologically objective).
If we are willing to accept that people are individuals whose value system exists within themselves and not outside themselves and that an ethical value system merely reconciles the value systems of individuals with each other by each value system not being contradictory to each other (and hence irrational), then we may come to an agreement.
Okay, I mentioned the non-contradictory part. We should expand. The entire value system of two or more individuals need not be non-contradictory on all counts, just on those counts where they interact. Its non-contradictoriness can only be considered for the duration of an interplay between the value systems of two or more people. Whether a man alone on an island contradicts his values or not is irrelevant to any other man. Now, how can we determine whether two value systems are contradictory? Easily, no man with informed consent will agree to anything that does not accomplish his goals (the tangible representation of his value system). Maybe he wrongly relates his goals to a particular action, but his responsibility is to himself to understand the consequences of his action.
Now, where do value systems contradict each other? Two cases according to the reasoning presented: (1) A man agrees with another man to do something and does not do it (intentional misinformation). (2) A man threatens violence on another man to do something against his will (no consent).
Furthermore, man who does these things has placed himself in a difficult position. He is unethical (according to the aforementioned explanation), which means that he is poses a danger to other men. The rational thing for other men to do is to not deal with him in case #(1) and to kill or incapacitate him in case #(2).
In either case, this is merely to prove that I've taken a far more reasoned position (although admittedly the presentation is lacking) based on a far more realistic view of reality. This is far from propaganda. In fact, your faith that unselfishness is good is far less reasonable than my position. The basic idea: No proof exists for an ontologically objective value system. Any value system is inherently ontologically subjective, but an epistomologically objective set of standards can be used to determine whether the ontologically intersubjective interplay of individual value systems contradict each other. If they do, then the individual(s) can be said to be not just holding irrational values (usually via means rather than ends), but also, such individual(s) could easily be considered a threat to others, leaving others with the most rational option of removing him from civil society or punishing him to prevent this. Combined with human nature being rational (if sometimes ignorant), any irrationality which does not stem from ignorance (it usually does) is a contradiction to human nature. If human nature is the nature of humans, then I think you can see where going against it is either unnatural or inhuman (even if you were to disagree about what human nature is). As such, in order to accept the moral proposition that human nature is flawed, you must accept that being human is bad. If you accept that being human is bad, then what value is human life?
What your ideas imply, I doubt you care to contemplate.
Anyway, for a moment, let's return to the man alone on the island. Let's assume that his value system is ethical (according once again to the idea of an ethical value system is one that does not contradict another value system that it has interplay with). Does this then mean none of his values contradict each other? No, it merely means that he is not a threat to others. This would be all that I ask of anyone. Whoever wishes to put themselves into the slavery that is communism just better make sure their little commune stays ethical or we can't play nice. Consider though that if we were to extend "ethical" judgments to individual value systems as they relate to themselves, we would then need to deem this man alone contradicting only himself as unethical (dangerous to himself in much the same way that the limited ethics is dangerous to others)... this standard I gladly take on myself since self-destruction is not my goal.
If people like me ruled the world, well, people like me don't want to rule the world, we just want to be left alone from the parasites and lead our own lives free from having to support anyone we don't want to free from having to produce anything we don't want or need. Any government that allows me that kind of life, deserves that I risk my life to defend it.
| Monday, October 31, 2011 - 09:22 am |
These words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean...
| Monday, October 31, 2011 - 09:45 am |
By this I mean there is no such thing as being "ontologically subjective" or "ontologically objective."
Ontology is the study of being. It can only be objective, by definition. The closet thing I can think of to what might be considered subjective ontology would be phenomenology.
Similarly, epistemology can ONLY be subjective, as it is the study of how we know things. That is, I assume you mean post-Cartesian epistemology which can only approach approximating objective certainty with apriori propositions that attempt to cross the epistemic gap between the mind and reality.
"Combined with human nature being rational (if sometimes ignorant), any irrationality which does not stem from ignorance (it usually does) is a contradiction to human nature. If human nature is the nature of humans, then I think you can see where going against it is either unnatural or inhuman (even if you were to disagree about what human nature is). As such, in order to accept the moral proposition that human nature is flawed, you must accept that being human is bad. If you accept that being human is bad, then what value is human life?"
In this section:
First of all, tautology is tautologous.
Second, petitio principii.
Third, you're equivocating terms.
Fourth, post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I'll let the kiddies play match-the-problem to the text.
| Monday, October 31, 2011 - 06:38 pm |
Now the world is starting to see who capitalists really are 'Blood Sucking Leaches' people will soon unravel this web of deceit that these capitalists have been spinning us. And they will dethrone this monetary system disguised as democracy called capitalism that these Blood Suckers have been imposing on us through the manipulation of our weakest instincts: desire and fear.
This capitalistic way of life, void from responsibility, honour and morals due to the fact that its just a monetary system and not a way of life, will be soon put into its rightful place.
Capitalism will work together with Communism (community) socialism (society) and religion (morality) creating the situation where these Blood Suckers will become out casts and classed as social deviants.
Then this monetary system called capitalism will only be able to influence the economics of life when it is clear that it will have no negative effect on our societies social, community and moral guidance.
And what will happen to the capitalist?
They are gonna have to take a long hard look at themselves and hope that what they see isn't too disturbing