G
Guest
Guest
Reply to Kilroy:
>Why did you take away the
>part where i said that
>anarchy is an utopia and
>the part about the african
>village where anacrhy works?
Even then it does not work. There is always a government. Who is to decide who's land is who's or if the land is shared, who get's what portion of what? There is government at the very lowest levels in all places. You may even call a family government, the parents always have power over the children (which seems to be changing nowadays). Anarchy doesn't exist in any form.
>I
>agreed that anarchy isn't going
>to work in real life,
>but people can still dream
>right? I don't profess communism,
>I say it's better than
>capitalism.
No it isn't, maybe from the theoretical perspective but then again everything in theory (except anarchy) works perfectly. A dictatorship is perfect under the perfect ruler; a communist state is perfect if each worker works for the greater whole, there is perfect distribution of goods, and each person works for group and not of self; a capitalistic society works perfectly by letting competitors strive to bring the best and cheapest product to the consumer market in order to sell the most, the consumer benefits most; a democratic society works perfectly if all questions can be put to a vote and everyone obeys the end resolution; a Republic works perfectly because it is a better democratic system except decisions are made at a higher level than taking the entire population into consideration. All are perfect in theory and thus you must move the deciding factor to its form in-action. Communism does not work. It is worse than capitalism because there are no goverment institutions to bring down power hungry rich right abusers. Why? Because they're the ones with the power and since you can't ELECT anyone new, they stay in power perpetually.
>Communism isn't what yo
>think it is. To put
>it simple: A communist want
>that the spoil of the
>worker should pay the worker.
>In other words: the worker
>pays himself.
No, you are confused.
The theoretical communist idea is that everyone works his job and gives his product to society, he then receives from society what he himself cannot or is not producing himself. Thus a steel worker produces steel but also receives food from other workers who receive steel. The revision to this, and the one more professed is that the worker does his work and receives the same pay as a person who does different work. Thus a doctor recieves the same pay as a farmer. Sounds good but there are problems, some people figure that they will be paid ANYWAY whether or not they do work or not. Others will reason that they should be paid MORE because they do more. It all goes to hell from there.
>A capitalist wants that the spoil
>of the worker should
>go to the owner of
>the factory so that there
>could be work. In other
>words: the owner of the
>factory gets all the money
>from the workers labour. Of
>those two things I think
>the first is the better.
Again you are confused.
A capitalistic society addresses the demand for more pay for more work. You are paid according to the work you perform. Whoever does the best work gets paid the best. It makes sense. However there are problems. People or corporations, once they have attained a good reputation and foundation they can strut their might by merging with other lesser corporations. Thus the monopoly system starts and the entire purpose of capitalism is shot to pieces. That's why you need governments to enfore trade practices that live under the doctrine of captitalism.
>I must ask you a
>question: If it wheren't any
>laws against killing people would
>you go around killing people
>then? I hope the answer
>is no.I know what you
>are going to say something
>like: "yes, i wouldn't kill
>just because it's legal but
>others might".
>To that I
>say don't you think that
>the murder would be driven
>away from the town where
>they have killed or be
>punished some other way?
Let me ask you something. Who would enforce that unspoken law? Who has the power to? A government.
That would obviously be the strongmen of the village. How would those people be chosen? Because the rest of the town has elected them to the position. They enfore these unspoken rules. Thus there is law.
Law's are the rules created by those strong enough to enforce them. In all societies there is always someone who is stronger than the others. Thus what they say is law.
Thus anarchy does not and cannot exist.
>About
>the part in the movie
>"Monty Python's search for the
>Holy Graal" I wonder if
>you ever has seen that
>movie. What Dennis say could
>infact work. Anarchy means that
>some politians in Washington DC
>won't control New Mexico or
>Colorado. South Park, Colorado is
>controled by South Park, Colorado
>and not by Washington DC.
>By officals voted by the
>citizens of South Park.
Wrong again. What you are describing are city-states which have their own laws and governments. If you tear down a higher order and do not replace it, smaller orders will form. There is always order. There is never anarchy except in the forming of order, and that is lawless destruction.
>And
>no I ouldn't have robots
>making the food for me.
>Unless you can provide such
>a robot. Unlike 90% of
>all americans (yes this is
>actual numbers) I have seen
>a cow in real life
>and I know how to
>produce food on my own
>(agriculture, hunting/gathering etc.).
Well shucks so have I, and I've seen how chickens are slaughtered too. Does that make you any better? Really, GET OVER IT.
>And if
>I have the money to
>bu myself an island somewhere
>I would have the money
>to pay some company to
>drop some food from airplanes
>once a week or so.
>Of course will the crates
>with the food have parachutes.
And your point here is?
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
>Why did you take away the
>part where i said that
>anarchy is an utopia and
>the part about the african
>village where anacrhy works?
Even then it does not work. There is always a government. Who is to decide who's land is who's or if the land is shared, who get's what portion of what? There is government at the very lowest levels in all places. You may even call a family government, the parents always have power over the children (which seems to be changing nowadays). Anarchy doesn't exist in any form.
>I
>agreed that anarchy isn't going
>to work in real life,
>but people can still dream
>right? I don't profess communism,
>I say it's better than
>capitalism.
No it isn't, maybe from the theoretical perspective but then again everything in theory (except anarchy) works perfectly. A dictatorship is perfect under the perfect ruler; a communist state is perfect if each worker works for the greater whole, there is perfect distribution of goods, and each person works for group and not of self; a capitalistic society works perfectly by letting competitors strive to bring the best and cheapest product to the consumer market in order to sell the most, the consumer benefits most; a democratic society works perfectly if all questions can be put to a vote and everyone obeys the end resolution; a Republic works perfectly because it is a better democratic system except decisions are made at a higher level than taking the entire population into consideration. All are perfect in theory and thus you must move the deciding factor to its form in-action. Communism does not work. It is worse than capitalism because there are no goverment institutions to bring down power hungry rich right abusers. Why? Because they're the ones with the power and since you can't ELECT anyone new, they stay in power perpetually.
>Communism isn't what yo
>think it is. To put
>it simple: A communist want
>that the spoil of the
>worker should pay the worker.
>In other words: the worker
>pays himself.
No, you are confused.
The theoretical communist idea is that everyone works his job and gives his product to society, he then receives from society what he himself cannot or is not producing himself. Thus a steel worker produces steel but also receives food from other workers who receive steel. The revision to this, and the one more professed is that the worker does his work and receives the same pay as a person who does different work. Thus a doctor recieves the same pay as a farmer. Sounds good but there are problems, some people figure that they will be paid ANYWAY whether or not they do work or not. Others will reason that they should be paid MORE because they do more. It all goes to hell from there.
>A capitalist wants that the spoil
>of the worker should
>go to the owner of
>the factory so that there
>could be work. In other
>words: the owner of the
>factory gets all the money
>from the workers labour. Of
>those two things I think
>the first is the better.
Again you are confused.
A capitalistic society addresses the demand for more pay for more work. You are paid according to the work you perform. Whoever does the best work gets paid the best. It makes sense. However there are problems. People or corporations, once they have attained a good reputation and foundation they can strut their might by merging with other lesser corporations. Thus the monopoly system starts and the entire purpose of capitalism is shot to pieces. That's why you need governments to enfore trade practices that live under the doctrine of captitalism.
>I must ask you a
>question: If it wheren't any
>laws against killing people would
>you go around killing people
>then? I hope the answer
>is no.I know what you
>are going to say something
>like: "yes, i wouldn't kill
>just because it's legal but
>others might".
>To that I
>say don't you think that
>the murder would be driven
>away from the town where
>they have killed or be
>punished some other way?
Let me ask you something. Who would enforce that unspoken law? Who has the power to? A government.
That would obviously be the strongmen of the village. How would those people be chosen? Because the rest of the town has elected them to the position. They enfore these unspoken rules. Thus there is law.
Law's are the rules created by those strong enough to enforce them. In all societies there is always someone who is stronger than the others. Thus what they say is law.
Thus anarchy does not and cannot exist.
>About
>the part in the movie
>"Monty Python's search for the
>Holy Graal" I wonder if
>you ever has seen that
>movie. What Dennis say could
>infact work. Anarchy means that
>some politians in Washington DC
>won't control New Mexico or
>Colorado. South Park, Colorado is
>controled by South Park, Colorado
>and not by Washington DC.
>By officals voted by the
>citizens of South Park.
Wrong again. What you are describing are city-states which have their own laws and governments. If you tear down a higher order and do not replace it, smaller orders will form. There is always order. There is never anarchy except in the forming of order, and that is lawless destruction.
>And
>no I ouldn't have robots
>making the food for me.
>Unless you can provide such
>a robot. Unlike 90% of
>all americans (yes this is
>actual numbers) I have seen
>a cow in real life
>and I know how to
>produce food on my own
>(agriculture, hunting/gathering etc.).
Well shucks so have I, and I've seen how chickens are slaughtered too. Does that make you any better? Really, GET OVER IT.
>And if
>I have the money to
>bu myself an island somewhere
>I would have the money
>to pay some company to
>drop some food from airplanes
>once a week or so.
>Of course will the crates
>with the food have parachutes.
And your point here is?
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
), and you must abide the same laws as we all do, or you are a freak, an outcast and useless unit.