Advertisement
by Cedoria » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:05 pm
by Pandeeria » Sun Sep 04, 2016 11:31 pm
Cedoria wrote:The state will always serve the interests of a conglomerate of the wealthy and powerful. It's hardly new. The only question is, what do you do about it?
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Mattopilos » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:02 am
Pandeeria wrote:Cedoria wrote:The state will always serve the interests of a conglomerate of the wealthy and powerful. It's hardly new. The only question is, what do you do about it?
We should vote. Because obviously the system that is dominated by said conglomerate will allow it's self to be voted out of existence.
by Australian rePublic » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:04 am
by Mattopilos » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:11 am
Australian Republic wrote:All rich people live happy lives? Is that some kind of joke?
by Nochov » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:25 am
Except whenever direct democracy is tried, it just results in nothing ever changing because the people who oppose change care enough to go out and raise their hand, while the ones who support it can't be bothered. Just look at the Swiss statistics on how many motions are carried and how many fall.Mattopilos wrote:Pandeeria wrote:
We should vote. Because obviously the system that is dominated by said conglomerate will allow it's self to be voted out of existence.
Fight for direct democracy - for a TRUE voice of the people, not some representative that is only in it for the power over decisions.
by Mattopilos » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:29 am
Nochov wrote:Except whenever direct democracy is tried, it just results in nothing ever changing because the people who oppose change care enough to go out and raise their hand, while the ones who support it can't be bothered. Just look at the Swiss statistics on how many motions are carried and how many fall.Mattopilos wrote:
Fight for direct democracy - for a TRUE voice of the people, not some representative that is only in it for the power over decisions.
A government needs to get things done, and the force getting those things done needs to be a powerful and charismatic technocrat with the support of the military and an oligarchy of fellow technocrats. Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall. Better it be to an oligarchy than to an autocracy, because the oligarchy at least can have internal methods of control, where the autocracy only has chaotic revolutions and coups to rely on.
by Minzerland II » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:31 am
St Anselm of Canterbury wrote:[…]who ever heard of anything having two mothers or two fathers? (Monologion, pg. 63)
by Mattopilos » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:36 am
by Nochov » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:50 am
I absolutely want that. If you want to influence society, nothing's stopping you from signing up for military service, advancing in the ranks to the point where you're allowed a civilian leadership position, and then advancing in those ranks to a spot on the technocratic council.Mattopilos wrote:Nochov wrote:Except whenever direct democracy is tried, it just results in nothing ever changing because the people who oppose change care enough to go out and raise their hand, while the ones who support it can't be bothered. Just look at the Swiss statistics on how many motions are carried and how many fall.
A government needs to get things done, and the force getting those things done needs to be a powerful and charismatic technocrat with the support of the military and an oligarchy of fellow technocrats. Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall. Better it be to an oligarchy than to an autocracy, because the oligarchy at least can have internal methods of control, where the autocracy only has chaotic revolutions and coups to rely on.
... I hope this is a joke. Really, you want an authoritarian society where the government makes all the choices? Yeah, can't see that going wrong. Nope. Not at all. Not ever.
Can I ask how motions not passing is a measure of a nation's progress? Also, this is assuming that a society is not apathetic, which doesn't really happen in any authoritarian society - they don't get a real big say unless they are the fringe, so why bother?
"Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall" Yeah, almost it has been failing and dying out for 2000 or so years s/
by Mattopilos » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:57 am
Nochov wrote:I absolutely want that. If you want to influence society, nothing's stopping you from signing up for military service, advancing in the ranks to the point where you're allowed a civilian leadership position, and then advancing in those ranks to a spot on the technocratic council.Mattopilos wrote:
... I hope this is a joke. Really, you want an authoritarian society where the government makes all the choices? Yeah, can't see that going wrong. Nope. Not at all. Not ever.
Can I ask how motions not passing is a measure of a nation's progress? Also, this is assuming that a society is not apathetic, which doesn't really happen in any authoritarian society - they don't get a real big say unless they are the fringe, so why bother?
"Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall" Yeah, almost it has been failing and dying out for 2000 or so years s/
A nation that doesn't change is a nation that goes into a decline. Look at the ancient Greeks and Romans, they provide great examples of periods of stagnancy and decline, and periods of change and prosperity. And general society is most definitely apathetic, just look at the small number of people politically engaged.
Every historic democracy has died with the exception of the parliament of the Isle of Mann, which has extenuating circumstances, being a fairly small and isolated community. There's no reason to believe that this trend will be broken just because a few of our current democracies have been around for a few hundred years. External and/or internal forces exert pressure, and democracies crumble.
by Saiwania » Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:39 am
by Community Values » Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:44 am
Mattopilos wrote:Community Values wrote:
They created money for the prostitutes to live better lives. They payed for the champagne, which goes to businesses that make champagne, and considering how much they bought, I could see that business expanding.
Yeah, if they spent a bit more, I could see it creating jobs. Nevertheless, it sure helped the businesses they went to.
They shouldn't require wealthy people to go in there in order to hold up their businesses. The prostitutes would live better lives if there weren't so many fucking laws that limit what they can do.
by Ohioan Territory » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:02 am
by The Islands of Versilia » Mon Sep 05, 2016 6:13 am
by The New Sea Territory » Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:36 pm
Cedoria wrote:The state will always serve the interests of a conglomerate of the wealthy and powerful. It's hardly new. The only question is, what do you do about it?
| Ⓐ ☭ | Anarchist Communist | Heideggerian Marxist | Vegetarian | Bisexual | Stirnerite | Slavic/Germanic Pagan | ᚨ ᛟ |
Solntsa Roshcha --- Postmodern Poyltheist
"Christianity had brutally planted the poisoned blade in the healthy, quivering flesh of all humanity; it had goaded a cold wave
of darkness with mystically brutal fury to dim the serene and festive exultation of the dionysian spirit of our pagan ancestors."
-Renzo Novatore, Verso il Nulla Creatore
by The New Sea Territory » Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:37 pm
Australian Republic wrote:All rich people live happy lives? Is that some kind of joke?
| Ⓐ ☭ | Anarchist Communist | Heideggerian Marxist | Vegetarian | Bisexual | Stirnerite | Slavic/Germanic Pagan | ᚨ ᛟ |
Solntsa Roshcha --- Postmodern Poyltheist
"Christianity had brutally planted the poisoned blade in the healthy, quivering flesh of all humanity; it had goaded a cold wave
of darkness with mystically brutal fury to dim the serene and festive exultation of the dionysian spirit of our pagan ancestors."
-Renzo Novatore, Verso il Nulla Creatore
by Yugosatan » Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:40 pm
by The New Sea Territory » Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:43 pm
Nochov wrote:A government needs to get things done, and the force getting those things done needs to be a powerful and charismatic technocrat with the support of the military and an oligarchy of fellow technocrats.
| Ⓐ ☭ | Anarchist Communist | Heideggerian Marxist | Vegetarian | Bisexual | Stirnerite | Slavic/Germanic Pagan | ᚨ ᛟ |
Solntsa Roshcha --- Postmodern Poyltheist
"Christianity had brutally planted the poisoned blade in the healthy, quivering flesh of all humanity; it had goaded a cold wave
of darkness with mystically brutal fury to dim the serene and festive exultation of the dionysian spirit of our pagan ancestors."
-Renzo Novatore, Verso il Nulla Creatore
by Pandeeria » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:38 pm
Nochov wrote:Except whenever direct democracy is tried, it just results in nothing ever changing because the people who oppose change care enough to go out and raise their hand, while the ones who support it can't be bothered. Just look at the Swiss statistics on how many motions are carried and how many fall.Mattopilos wrote:
Fight for direct democracy - for a TRUE voice of the people, not some representative that is only in it for the power over decisions.
A government needs to get things done, and the force getting those things done needs to be a powerful and charismatic technocrat with the support of the military and an oligarchy of fellow technocrats. Democracy is a social experiment inevitably doomed to fall. Better it be to an oligarchy than to an autocracy, because the oligarchy at least can have internal methods of control, where the autocracy only has chaotic revolutions and coups to rely on.
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Free People of the World » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:06 pm
Darjihad wrote:Libertarians want to fat-shame the government.
by Pandeeria » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:10 pm
Free People of the World wrote:So you think that the system is unfair. Okay, sure, let's assume that Capitalism is a complete failure (it isn't) and that rich people don't "deserve" their money (varies with the circumstances, in my opinion).
So what do you want to do? You want to "redistribute" wealth (hint: it's called stealing). Basically, you want to take money from rich people and give it to poor people, since apparently the rich people "stole" it from poor people by, in most cases, having the poor people voluntarily pay them for a product. Before you cry, "But they only buy it because they're forced too!", well, sorry to burst your bubble, but they're not. They have this thing called options, thanks to capitalism. If they don't like the way a certain company is treating, them they can take their money elsewhere, unlike in the ideal socialist/communist country, where the government controls everything and people are essentially forced to buy it.
Thus, the axioms of your logic are:
1. Since rich people got rich by making a product that people pay money to get, that is stealing.
2. We should steal from rich people and give the money to poor people (after 95% of that money goes to the government's pocket, I might add)
3. Poor people are poor because rich people "exploited" them (essentially, the rich people pay the poor people to work and make a product, which is then sold to poor people, who voluntarily give money to get that product. The rich people sell the product for a higher price than it takes to make the product, creating something called profit. [by the way, if you think that the business makes too much profit, then take your business elsewhere!] )
4. Rich people stealing from poor people is wrong (by having them voluntarily give them money), but poor people stealing from rich people (by having the government forcibly take their money) is right.
5. The government decides what is "fair." (All I need to say is this: If you think rich people are so corrupt, then why are you entrusting the concept of what is "fair" to a bunch of people at the top, rather than letting people essentially vote with their money through options?)
I see NO flaws in that argument AT ALL
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
by Free People of the World » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:13 pm
Pandeeria wrote:Free People of the World wrote:So you think that the system is unfair. Okay, sure, let's assume that Capitalism is a complete failure (it isn't) and that rich people don't "deserve" their money (varies with the circumstances, in my opinion).
So what do you want to do? You want to "redistribute" wealth (hint: it's called stealing). Basically, you want to take money from rich people and give it to poor people, since apparently the rich people "stole" it from poor people by, in most cases, having the poor people voluntarily pay them for a product. Before you cry, "But they only buy it because they're forced too!", well, sorry to burst your bubble, but they're not. They have this thing called options, thanks to capitalism. If they don't like the way a certain company is treating, them they can take their money elsewhere, unlike in the ideal socialist/communist country, where the government controls everything and people are essentially forced to buy it.
Thus, the axioms of your logic are:
1. Since rich people got rich by making a product that people pay money to get, that is stealing.
2. We should steal from rich people and give the money to poor people (after 95% of that money goes to the government's pocket, I might add)
3. Poor people are poor because rich people "exploited" them (essentially, the rich people pay the poor people to work and make a product, which is then sold to poor people, who voluntarily give money to get that product. The rich people sell the product for a higher price than it takes to make the product, creating something called profit. [by the way, if you think that the business makes too much profit, then take your business elsewhere!] )
4. Rich people stealing from poor people is wrong (by having them voluntarily give them money), but poor people stealing from rich people (by having the government forcibly take their money) is right.
5. The government decides what is "fair." (All I need to say is this: If you think rich people are so corrupt, then why are you entrusting the concept of what is "fair" to a bunch of people at the top, rather than letting people essentially vote with their money through options?)
I see NO flaws in that argument AT ALL
Welfare and wealth redistribution isn't really a thing under Socialism, at like, all. The closet thing to it can be the siezed means of production.
Darjihad wrote:Libertarians want to fat-shame the government.
by Pandeeria » Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:20 pm
Lavochkin wrote:Never got why educated people support communism.
In capitalism, you pretty much have a 50/50 chance of being rich or poor. In communism, it's 1/99. What makes people think they have the luck/skill to become the 1% if they can't even succeed in a 50/50 society???
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], The Eur-asian Federation, Tungstan
Advertisement