Ayn Rand

[Kibbutz Unions]

Yes. And so is Venezuela (Despite the Socialist leadership, the government isn't all-powerful and must face a lot of imperialistic monopolists trying to sabotage the transition to a more social economy).

Before you go "Well, that's 'no true socialism' again", there's a very easy way to describe Socialism: collective ownership over the means of production. Do any of those countries on your list have that? No. In fact, do they work and provide: (1)resources, (2)cheap labor to Capitalist companies for wages? Yes.

How the hell is that not capitalist?

So, if socialism has not manifested anywhere despite unambiguous socialist leadership, I guess that means socialism is impossible.

It has manifested in different forms. During the 20th Century the primary movements were Marxism-Leninism and variants ("Communism") and Social-Democracy (And to a lesser extent Democratic Socialism). It also was briefly manifested (And currently manifesting in present tense in Rojava) in forms such as Anarchism.

And this is on top of the fact that before something happens for the first time, there was an eternity (Not literal but you get the point) prior to it in which it didn't happen. So even that isn't really an argument.

[The Liberated Territories]

You won't starve because you don't have a job.

You'll starve because the government made it illegal long ago to hunt or fish without a license, or with a gun, collect rainwater, or otherwise do things that are considered basic survival skills.

[VoVoDoCo]

Yet they failed utterly and millions died. I have yet to see anyone killed from Rand's thinking.

I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how many people have died because it wasn't profitable to provide for them?

The Randian philosophy of eschewing mutual aid (and by extension, Capitalism in general) has killed more than le gommunism could ever hope to, and left all but the fortunate few (myself included) worse off for it.

I also get a kick outta your flag. "No gods, no masters", he says! Well, except for the boss, who determines my work hours, wages, living conditions, and essentially every other factor about my life.

Your source says that in the capitalist world:

• 8,000,000 die a year from a lack of clean water
• 7,665,000 die from hunger
• 3,000,000 from vaccine preventable diseases
• 500,000 die from Malaria

If you're going to demand equality, the Nordic Model does more to eliminate those problems than socialism does.Why are you demanding workers revolution when one can just raise taxes a little?
Just saying. Occam's Razor and all that.

[Northern Davincia]

So, if socialism has not manifested anywhere despite unambiguous socialist leadership, I guess that means socialism is impossible.

It has manifested in different forms. During the 20th Century the primary movements were Marxism-Leninism and variants ("Communism") and Social-Democracy (And to a lesser extent Democratic Socialism). It also was briefly manifested (And currently manifesting in present tense in Rojava) in forms such as Anarchism.

And this is on top of the fact that before something happens for the first time, there was an eternity (Not literal but you get the point) prior to it in which it didn't happen. So even that isn't really an argument.

Yes, the movements existed, but did they succeed? Social democracy was co-opted by liberals and everything else mentioned imploded.

[Kibbutz Unions]

You won't starve because you don't have a job.

You'll starve because the government made it illegal long ago to hunt or fish without a license, or with a gun, collect rainwater, or otherwise do things that are considered basic survival skills.

Yeah because people in cities will hunt.... the rats?

We live in the 21st Century, and it is urban. The land is privately owned too, so even if you wanted to you wouldn't have been able to pick up a crop, nor cultivate a land unless you have the monetary wealth to purchase it.
Also, where will you live? Even if you could build a house alone by yourself, again, the land is privately owned so you'll have, again, to purchase.

The fact is that the Capitalists own pretty much everything and control pretty much everything, if you do not comply- you die. Stop trying to twist it, I'm sure you are quite supportive of private land ownership and private resources ownership- THIS is where the problem lies.

[VoVoDoCo]

You won't starve because you don't have a job.

You'll starve because the government made it illegal long ago to hunt or fish without a license, or with a gun, collect rainwater, or otherwise do things that are considered basic survival skills.

Yeah because people in cities will hunt.... the rats?

We live in the 21st Century, and it is urban. The land is privately owned too, so even if you wanted to you wouldn't have been able to pick up a crop, nor cultivate a land unless you have the monetary wealth to purchase it.
Also, where will you live? Even if you could build a house alone by yourself, again, the land is privately owned so you'll have, again, to purchase.

The fact is that the Capitalists own pretty much everything and control pretty much everything, if you do not comply- you die. Stop trying to twist it, I'm sure you are quite supportive of private land ownership and private resources ownership- THIS is where the problem lies.

Again, abolish private property... or you can just raise taxes. Why do we have to have a revolution to pretend to solve a problem when you can just raise taxes? You want a real life example of collectivism working? Fucking look at the Nordic Model in Europe. Why can't you compromise on that?

[Northern Davincia]

You won't starve because you don't have a job.

You'll starve because the government made it illegal long ago to hunt or fish without a license, or with a gun, collect rainwater, or otherwise do things that are considered basic survival skills.

Yeah because people in cities will hunt.... the rats?

We live in the 21st Century, and it is urban. The land is privately owned too, so even if you wanted to you wouldn't have been able to pick up a crop, nor cultivate a land unless you have the monetary wealth to purchase it.
Also, where will you live? Even if you could build a house alone by yourself, again, the land is privately owned so you'll have, again, to purchase.

The fact is that the Capitalists own pretty much everything and control pretty much everything, if you do not comply- you die. Stop trying to twist it, I'm sure you are quite supportive of private land ownership and private resources ownership- THIS is where the problem lies.

Move to a commune or become Amish.

[Kibbutz Unions]

I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how many people have died because it wasn't profitable to provide for them?

The Randian philosophy of eschewing mutual aid (and by extension, Capitalism in general) has killed more than le gommunism could ever hope to, and left all but the fortunate few (myself included) worse off for it.

I also get a kick outta your flag. "No gods, no masters", he says! Well, except for the boss, who determines my work hours, wages, living conditions, and essentially every other factor about my life.

Your source says that in the capitalist world:

• 8,000,000 die a year from a lack of clean water
• 7,665,000 die from hunger
• 3,000,000 from vaccine preventable diseases
• 500,000 die from Malaria

If you're going to demand equality, the Nordic Model does more to eliminate those problems than socialism does.Why are you demanding workers revolution when one can just raise taxes a little?
Just saying. Occam's Razor and all that.

A. The Nordic Model definitely benefits Scandinavia- but because of the international political and economic power structure this is still based on the western economic imperialism, so a mixed economy or a social democracy is beneficial to wealthy countries like Sweden but their success cannot be replicated in let's say, Venezuela. The Capitalist International Mode of Production cannot exist without inhumane slavery, child labor and sweatshops, it cannot exist without authoritarian dictatorships, death squads and repressions. It's just that once it used to be in Europe primarily (19th Century) and now it hasn't disappeared, just moved to Asia and Africa primarily.
Socialism intends to rid itself of this dystopian world order.

B. Equality, at least for me, isn't the goal but a means. It just so happens that treating people equally, providing them with true equal opportunity, and respecting them even if they're different is very basic to creating a just society that will be able to provide people with self-fulfillment, end alienation, and create a platform for a just existence. On top of the fact that a socialist world will only stop the environmental destruction caused by capitalism and literally save us all in that sense.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Yeah because people in cities will hunt.... the rats?

We live in the 21st Century, and it is urban. The land is privately owned too, so even if you wanted to you wouldn't have been able to pick up a crop, nor cultivate a land unless you have the monetary wealth to purchase it.
Also, where will you live? Even if you could build a house alone by yourself, again, the land is privately owned so you'll have, again, to purchase.

The fact is that the Capitalists own pretty much everything and control pretty much everything, if you do not comply- you die. Stop trying to twist it, I'm sure you are quite supportive of private land ownership and private resources ownership- THIS is where the problem lies.

Move to a commune or become Amish.

lol no.

[Kibbutz Unions]

Yeah because people in cities will hunt.... the rats?

We live in the 21st Century, and it is urban. The land is privately owned too, so even if you wanted to you wouldn't have been able to pick up a crop, nor cultivate a land unless you have the monetary wealth to purchase it.
Also, where will you live? Even if you could build a house alone by yourself, again, the land is privately owned so you'll have, again, to purchase.

The fact is that the Capitalists own pretty much everything and control pretty much everything, if you do not comply- you die. Stop trying to twist it, I'm sure you are quite supportive of private land ownership and private resources ownership- THIS is where the problem lies.

Again, abolish private property... or you can just raise taxes. Why do we have to have a revolution to pretend to solve a problem when you can just raise taxes? You want a real life example of collectivism working? Fucking look at the Nordic Model in Europe. Why can't you compromise on that?

I have answered to the question about the Nordic Model in my previous comment.
By the way, who's "you" that you're talking about? I mean I guess you can see I am a left-winger but I personally am not an advocate of a revolution in the first world which is probably where you find it most relevant to you (Although I would probably support it if it would have happened), we can work through the political system democratically and change our countries for the better. I am an advocate for revolution in the third world though because this is their only way of ending imperialism.

[Northern Davincia]

Move to a commune or become Amish.

lol no.

Afraid to test out your theories in an environment of likeminded people?

[Kibbutz Unions]

lol no.

Afraid to test out your theories in an environment of likeminded people?

If you think my qualms with Capitalism end with "Not enough community" then this might be remotely relevant (Still, probably not).
My problem with Capitalism is its' authoritarian, destructive, imperialist, dehumanizing nature.
And on top of that I wouldn't be able to escape the future natural global disaster created by industrial capitalism if I were in a commune, in this sense, Capitalism will bring us all down with it to the grave.

[Northern Davincia]

Afraid to test out your theories in an environment of likeminded people?

If you think my qualms with Capitalism end with "Not enough community" then this might be remotely relevant (Still, probably not).
My problem with Capitalism is its' authoritarian, destructive, imperialist, dehumanizing nature.
And on top of that I wouldn't be able to escape the future natural global disaster created by industrial capitalism if I were in a commune, in this sense, Capitalism will bring us all down with it to the grave.

With a commune, you would be able to stop contributing to this alleged authoritarianism. What are you achieving by remaining inside the system?

[VoVoDoCo]

I hardly see the benefit to countries like Venezuela to give control of the economy and general welfare from Capitalists to government officials. Most of the articles I've read recently chops most of the problems in Venezuela to government mismanagement.

[Cekoviu]

I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how many people have died because it wasn't profitable to provide for them?

The Randian philosophy of eschewing mutual aid (and by extension, Capitalism in general) has killed more than le gommunism could ever hope to, and left all but the fortunate few (myself included) worse off for it.

I also get a kick outta your flag. "No gods, no masters", he says! Well, except for the boss, who determines my work hours, wages, living conditions, and essentially every other factor about my life.

Your source says that in the capitalist world:

• 8,000,000 die a year from a lack of clean water
• 7,665,000 die from hunger
• 3,000,000 from vaccine preventable diseases
• 500,000 die from Malaria

If you're going to demand equality, the Nordic Model does more to eliminate those problems than socialism does.Why are you demanding workers revolution when one can just raise taxes a little?
Just saying. Occam's Razor and all that.

Are you advocating for social democracy then?
Not that I'm objecting to that.

[VoVoDoCo]

Your source says that in the capitalist world:

• 8,000,000 die a year from a lack of clean water
• 7,665,000 die from hunger
• 3,000,000 from vaccine preventable diseases
• 500,000 die from Malaria

If you're going to demand equality, the Nordic Model does more to eliminate those problems than socialism does.Why are you demanding workers revolution when one can just raise taxes a little?
Just saying. Occam's Razor and all that.

Are you advocating for social democracy then?
Not that I'm objecting to that.

I'm for it. Not because I think everyone needs to live til they're 80, but because it's better than the alternatives. Which are:

• State Capitalism/Authoritarian Socialism-Thinking that capitalist run economies are terrible, but GOVERNMENT run economies are beautiful
• Forced redistributionism (or whatever that's called)
• Capitalism with no welfare spending-bound to be replaced by either the above two, or social democracy.

Cut military spending and some health care entitlements and it pays for itself. Add environment regulation and it's sustainable. Not to mention as a potential politician that would be very capitalist minded, it'd be easy for me to feign hesitance to support such a policy to lure a social democrat to agree with something else on my agenda.

[Northern Davincia]

Are you advocating for social democracy then?
Not that I'm objecting to that.

I'm for it. Not because I think everyone needs to live til they're 80, but because it's better than the alternatives. Which are:

• State Capitalism/Authoritarian Socialism-Thinking that capitalist run economies are terrible, but GOVERNMENT run economies are beautiful
• Forced redistributionism (or whatever that's called)
• Capitalism with no welfare spending-bound to be replaced by either the above two, or social democracy.

Cut military spending and some health care entitlements and it pays for itself. Add environment regulation and it's sustainable. Not to mention as a potential politician that would be very capitalist minded, it'd be easy for me to feign hesitance to support such a policy to lure a social democrat to agree with something else on my agenda.

What kind of libertarian are you, if I may ask?

[Cekoviu]

Are you advocating for social democracy then?
Not that I'm objecting to that.

I'm for it. Not because I think everyone needs to live til they're 80, but because it's better than the alternatives. Which are:

• State Capitalism/Authoritarian Socialism-Thinking that capitalist run economies are terrible, but GOVERNMENT run economies are beautiful
• Forced redistributionism (or whatever that's called)
• Capitalism with no welfare spending-bound to be replaced by either the above two, or social democracy.

Cut military spending and some health care entitlements and it pays for itself. Add environment regulation and it's sustainable. Not to mention as a potential politician that would be very capitalist minded, it'd be easy for me to feign hesitance to support such a policy to lure a social democrat to agree with something else on my agenda.

I see. Based on your flag, I'd assume you're a laissez-faire ancap, but it appears that that's not the case.

[The Liberated Territories]

You won't starve because you don't have a job.

You'll starve because the government made it illegal long ago to hunt or fish without a license, or with a gun, collect rainwater, or otherwise do things that are considered basic survival skills.

Yeah because people in cities will hunt.... the rats?

We live in the 21st Century, and it is urban. The land is privately owned too, so even if you wanted to you wouldn't have been able to pick up a crop, nor cultivate a land unless you have the monetary wealth to purchase it.
Also, where will you live? Even if you could build a house alone by yourself, again, the land is privately owned so you'll have, again, to purchase.

The fact is that the Capitalists own pretty much everything and control pretty much everything, if you do not comply- you die. Stop trying to twist it, I'm sure you are quite supportive of private land ownership and private resources ownership- THIS is where the problem lies.

Urbanization has not stopped the urbanhorticulture, urban agriculture, and vertical farming movements. Where it has been stifled is mostly due to regulations.

You can still live in your car or go to a homeless shelter, if you don't want to purchase a house. Otherwise the claim that everything has been taken by somebody somewhere seems like a large case of citation needed. I'm sure no one would mind if you decided to camp out in a national park or live in a cave somewhere — or has the government restricted that too?

Likewise you'd probably die anyway in a property-less world like we had 5,000 years ago — you'd still have to work for your food and shelter then as you do now. The tribe wouldn't accept slackers. The difference between them is you no longer risk so much doing dangerous work as most of the low entry jobs are much less dangerous as 2,000 or even 200 years ago. As Ayn Rand said, "Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

[Cekoviu]

Yeah because people in cities will hunt.... the rats?

We live in the 21st Century, and it is urban. The land is privately owned too, so even if you wanted to you wouldn't have been able to pick up a crop, nor cultivate a land unless you have the monetary wealth to purchase it.
Also, where will you live? Even if you could build a house alone by yourself, again, the land is privately owned so you'll have, again, to purchase.

The fact is that the Capitalists own pretty much everything and control pretty much everything, if you do not comply- you die. Stop trying to twist it, I'm sure you are quite supportive of private land ownership and private resources ownership- THIS is where the problem lies.

Urbanization has not stopped the urbanhorticulture, urban agriculture, and vertical farming movements. Where it has been stifled is mostly due to regulations.

You can still live in your car or go to a homeless shelter, if you don't want to purchase a house. Otherwise the claim that everything has been taken by somebody somewhere seems like a large case of citation needed. I'm sure no one would mind if you decided to camp out in a national park or live in a cave somewhere — or has the government restricted that too?

Likewise you'd probably die anyway in a property-less world like we had 5,000 years ago — you'd still have to work for your food and shelter then as you do now. The tribe wouldn't accept slackers. The difference between them is you no longer risk so much doing dangerous work as most of the low entry jobs are much less dangerous as 2,000 or even 200 years ago. As Ayn Rand said, "Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

>an actual good quote from Ayn Rand
Did I accidentally step into another universe?

[The Liberated Territories]

Urbanization has not stopped the urbanhorticulture, urban agriculture, and vertical farming movements. Where it has been stifled is mostly due to regulations.

You can still live in your car or go to a homeless shelter, if you don't want to purchase a house. Otherwise the claim that everything has been taken by somebody somewhere seems like a large case of citation needed. I'm sure no one would mind if you decided to camp out in a national park or live in a cave somewhere — or has the government restricted that too?

Likewise you'd probably die anyway in a property-less world like we had 5,000 years ago — you'd still have to work for your food and shelter then as you do now. The tribe wouldn't accept slackers. The difference between them is you no longer risk so much doing dangerous work as most of the low entry jobs are much less dangerous as 2,000 or even 200 years ago. As Ayn Rand said, "Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

>an actual good quote from Ayn Rand
Did I accidentally step into another universe?

Well you clicked on a thread that says "Ayn Rand" in its title. I thought that would be expected no less.

[Cekoviu]

>an actual good quote from Ayn Rand
Did I accidentally step into another universe?

Well you clicked on a thread that says "Ayn Rand" in its title. I thought that would be expected no less.

I expected to see some bad quotes, given her... distasteful writing, but not anything that actually made any sense or wasn't advocating that you be a giant phallus to everyone.

[Salus Maior]

you're a devout catholic if I recall? You do realize that religion is a kind of collectivism right; especially so in the case of the catholic church?

As a Catholic, I choose to be charitable, and objectivism does not prohibit voluntary generosity.

The fact that you extol Rand, whose primary motivation is selfishness and says this is a "virtue",is concerning. As such ideals are completely incompatible with Catholicism, and Christianity as a whole.

Outside of maybe Prosperity Gospel.

[Salus Maior]

You won't starve because you don't have a job.

You'll starve because the government made it illegal long ago to hunt or fish without a license, or with a gun, collect rainwater, or otherwise do things that are considered basic survival skills.

And the reasoning for the regulation of hunting and fishing is to prevent overhunting/fishing.

You might not know this, but the animal kingdom isn't exactly like an order of bottomless fries that you can keep refreshing and expect to remain plentiful. And when you drive certain species to extinction, and remove whatever role they play in the ecosystem, it can be incredibly expensive to correct.

Not to mention, thanks to the private sector's pollution, fish can actually be toxic to eat in large quantities because of high mercury content. And that's just ocean fish, never mind rivers like the Hudson which have been subject to many forms of toxic pollution over the decades.

[The Liberated Territories]

You won't starve because you don't have a job.

You'll starve because the government made it illegal long ago to hunt or fish without a license, or with a gun, collect rainwater, or otherwise do things that are considered basic survival skills.

And the reasoning for the regulation of hunting and fishing is to prevent overhunting/fishing.

You might not know this, but the animal kingdom isn't exactly like an order of bottomless fries that you can keep refreshing and expect to remain plentiful. And when you drive certain species to extinction, and remove whatever role they play in the ecosystem, it can be incredibly expensive to correct.

Not to mention, thanks to the private sector's pollution, fish can actually be toxic to eat in large quantities because of high mercury content. And that's just ocean fish, never mind rivers like the Hudson which have been subject to many forms of toxic pollution over the decades.

Do you believe then we should intervene in the wild if one species threatens another to extinction, as happened for untold millenia? Probably not. But what makes human so special? Our constructions and behavior are entirely natural. If a species dies, it means it was too weak to compete with us, which is unsurprising given our position in the food chain. So why should we go about enabling weakness and correcting "mistakes."

Polluted rivers, oceans, etc. Happen because of a lack of property rights in that area, or selective enforcement of them.