The Thread Formerly Known As Communism Will Save The World

[Nova Cyberia]

What's your opinion of communism?

I think Communism's a pretty cool guy. Eh talks to dolphins and doesn't afraid of anything.

Hm, so you aren't actually advocating for anything. You aren't providing your opinion. You're too afraid to do that for whatever reason.

In other words, you have no real purpose on this thread beyond trying to irritate people. Times like these make me glad I have you on ignore.

[Purgatio]

So you genuinely, honestly see no distinction between someone stabbing a person's eyes out and a person deciding not to donate their corneas to a blind man...I mean, you are basically a complete consequentialist, all you care about is the direct but-for consequence of a person's choice, you don't care about everything that happened before that. To you, a mass murderer and someone who doesn't donate to UNICEF (when malnourished could have been saved) are exactly the same morally. Its just baffling.

I'm asking if it is really a voluntary exchange when I need to perform the exchange on pain of death. Whether stabbing someone to death is morally equivalent to allowing someone to starve to death is not the point.

---

It's almost as if Marxist """""morality""""" is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'm not talking about morality here at all. I'm asking if people selling their labour are really making a voluntary exchange when they need to do that to survive.

Wild that I can explicitly state that I'm not talking about whether it is morally equivalent to harm person and to allow them to come to harm and you two both fail to understand that.

How is it "not the point"? Coercing and forcing someone into a transaction against their will is an immoral thing to do, you are passing a moral judgment on the coercer or duressor. So yeah, the moral quality of his behaviour is absolutely relevant, and your comment implies you don't see a difference in the moral quality of a person offering to sell you a house for a sum of money and a person who threatens to burn down your house unless you sign a contract.

[Ifreann]

Hm, so you aren't actually advocating for anything. You aren't providing your opinion. You're too afraid to do that for whatever reason.

In other words, you have no real purpose on this thread beyond trying to irritate people. Times like these make me glad I have you on ignore.

It's a debate and discussion forum and I'm on ignore for giving my opinion when asked.

What a time to be alive.

[Nova Cyberia]

Hm, so you aren't actually advocating for anything. You aren't providing your opinion. You're too afraid to do that for whatever reason.

In other words, you have no real purpose on this thread beyond trying to irritate people. Times like these make me glad I have you on ignore.

It's a debate and discussion forum and I'm on ignore for giving my opinion when asked.

What a time to be alive.

You didn't give your opinion. You gave a non-funny joke that's about as witty as the stuff my prepubescent little brother comes up with.

But if you're certain that you're just giving your opinion, then let's try again. Are you advocating for communism or not? Yes or no?

[Grand Proudhonia]

Hm, so you aren't actually advocating for anything. You aren't providing your opinion. You're too afraid to do that for whatever reason.

In other words, you have no real purpose on this thread beyond trying to irritate people. Times like these make me glad I have you on ignore.

You guys are taking Ifreanns opinion so wrong that it actually hurts my soul

He is completely correct in his assumption that an action or transaction is not voluntary when such a transaction has been made a necessity for life (The thing that most people value more than anything)

[Strahcoin]

1. You value your life more than your labor. Therefore, you exchange your labor in return for your life.

You value your life more than your wallet, therefore you hand over your wallet to a thief. A voluntary exchange?

Also, the alternative is to grow your own food, not necessarily to die.

I'll just buy seeds and land with the money I don't have from not working.

2. Because they already have enough money from the jobs, from which they earn money, that they have worked in order to survive. If they didn't have enough money in order to survive, then volunteering would be their lowest priority, and feeding themselves would be their highest.

So like I said, people work when they don't need to.

I'll just say this: in the event of the thief, you are being robbed of your personal justly-owned property, while in the event of you not working, you are not. In fact, one may even argue that under communism, those that produce the food are the ones being held at gunpoint to surrender their justly-owned property (food) to those who don't deserve it.

Theft: "I have you at gunpoint; give me your rightfully-owned wallet." We both agree that this is not okay.
Capitalism: "You don't have money; therefore, I am not entitled to give you free food." You don't think this is okay, but I do.
Communism: "I have you at gunpoint; give me your rightfully-owned food." I don't think this is okay, but you are implying that it is (even if that's not what you first considered). However, there is little, if any, difference between this and the "theft" statement. The argument for communism starts to break down here.

[Nakena]

If you could have a little cut of his richness, would you take it. Even knowing that it has been done through other people work? Could you resist such temptation?

I don't know, it'd depend on a lot of things. What does this have to do with anything?

Absolutly everything. At least from my perspective and impression that is.

However I do reckon that we have not just different ideologies but fundamentally different perceptions of the world as a whole and it's workings. I imagine it is difficult to come to a common area here.

[Ifreann]

---

I'm not talking about morality here at all. I'm asking if people selling their labour are really making a voluntary exchange when they need to do that to survive.

Wild that I can explicitly state that I'm not talking about whether it is morally equivalent to harm person and to allow them to come to harm and you two both fail to understand that.

How is it "not the point"?

Because that's not the point I'm getting at.

I'm telling you directly the point I'm trying to make and the question I'm trying to explore, and you just refuse to understand. It's sad, man.

[Kowani]

You value your life more than your wallet, therefore you hand over your wallet to a thief. A voluntary exchange?

I'll just buy seeds and land with the money I don't have from not working.

So like I said, people work when they don't need to.

I'll just say this: in the event of the thief, you are being robbed of your personal justly-owned property, while in the event of you not working, you are not. In fact, one may even argue that under communism, those that produce the food are the ones being held at gunpoint to surrender their justly-owned property (food) to those who don't deserve it.

Theft: "I have you at gunpoint; give me your rightfully-owned wallet." We both agree that this is not okay.
Capitalism: "You don't have money; therefore, I am not entitled to give you free food." You don't think this is okay, but I do.
Communism: "I have you at gunpoint; give me your rightfully-owned food." I don't think this is okay, but you are implying that it is (even if that's not what you first considered). However, there is little, if any, difference between this and the "theft" statement. The argument for communism starts to break down here.

This distinction only works if you accept the concept of private property, so…

[Nova Cyberia]

I'll just say this: in the event of the thief, you are being robbed of your personal justly-owned property, while in the event of you not working, you are not. In fact, one may even argue that under communism, those that produce the food are the ones being held at gunpoint to surrender their justly-owned property (food) to those who don't deserve it.

Theft: "I have you at gunpoint; give me your rightfully-owned wallet." We both agree that this is not okay.
Capitalism: "You don't have money; therefore, I am not entitled to give you free food." You don't think this is okay, but I do.
Communism: "I have you at gunpoint; give me your rightfully-owned food." I don't think this is okay, but you are implying that it is (even if that's not what you first considered). However, there is little, if any, difference between this and the "theft" statement. The argument for communism starts to break down here.

This distinction only works if you accept the concept of private property, so…

Why wouldn't we? Private property is pretty fundamental, and not just to humans.

[Ifreann]

You value your life more than your wallet, therefore you hand over your wallet to a thief. A voluntary exchange?

I'll just buy seeds and land with the money I don't have from not working.

So like I said, people work when they don't need to.

I'll just say this: in the event of the thief, you are being robbed of your personal justly-owned property, while in the event of you not working, you are not. In fact, one may even argue that under communism, those that produce the food are the ones being held at gunpoint to surrender their justly-owned property (food) to those who don't deserve it.

I'm not asking you if it's bad to be robbed, I'm asking if it's a voluntary exchange to be robbed. You'll die if you don't make the exchange. Does that make the exchange involuntary?

I'm getting increasingly bored with people pretending not to get this.

[Nova Cyberia]

I'll just say this: in the event of the thief, you are being robbed of your personal justly-owned property, while in the event of you not working, you are not. In fact, one may even argue that under communism, those that produce the food are the ones being held at gunpoint to surrender their justly-owned property (food) to those who don't deserve it.

I'm not asking you if it's bad to be robbed, I'm asking if it's a voluntary exchange to be robbed. You'll die if you don't make the exchange. Does that make the exchange involuntary?

I'm getting increasingly bored with people pretending not to get this.

Then let's switch up the line of questioning.

Are you advocating for communism? Yes or no?

[Purgatio]

How is it "not the point"?

Because that's not the point I'm getting at.

I'm telling you directly the point I'm trying to make and the question I'm trying to explore, and you just refuse to understand. It's sad, man.

You mean....like you’re doing with my point now? Cropping out someone’s argument so you don’t have to deal with it seems to be a favourite of yours

[Grand Proudhonia]

This distinction only works if you accept the concept of private property, so…

Why wouldn't we? Private property is pretty fundamental, and not just to humans.

Not at all, private property is ultimately the theft of labor from the individual who works the land... Private Property ought to be divided up on a use and occupation basis aka the property belongs to the individual that works and lives on said land officially ending non labor income such as rent... Property is theft in the hands of the CEO but it is also liberty when given to the laborer... Its also important to make the distinction between private and personal property, private property is solely based on land while things like your cell phone is considered personal property

[Kowani]

This distinction only works if you accept the concept of private property, so…

Why wouldn't we? Private property is pretty fundamental, and not just to humans.

Because we are more than just our instincts?

[Ifreann]

I'm not asking you if it's bad to be robbed, I'm asking if it's a voluntary exchange to be robbed. You'll die if you don't make the exchange. Does that make the exchange involuntary?

I'm getting increasingly bored with people pretending not to get this.

Then let's switch up the line of questioning.

Are you advocating for communism? Yes or no?

I don't know if I'd say I'm advocating for it. I'd say I'm explaining my thoughts on the whole thing. You know, discussion. Kinda the point of this forum.

[Strahcoin]

I'll just say this: in the event of the thief, you are being robbed of your personal justly-owned property, while in the event of you not working, you are not. In fact, one may even argue that under communism, those that produce the food are the ones being held at gunpoint to surrender their justly-owned property (food) to those who don't deserve it.

Theft: "I have you at gunpoint; give me your rightfully-owned wallet." We both agree that this is not okay.
Capitalism: "You don't have money; therefore, I am not entitled to give you free food." You don't think this is okay, but I do.
Communism: "I have you at gunpoint; give me your rightfully-owned food." I don't think this is okay, but you are implying that it is (even if that's not what you first considered). However, there is little, if any, difference between this and the "theft" statement. The argument for communism starts to break down here.

This distinction only works if you accept the concept of private property, so…

According to John Locke, natural rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." The Philosophy of Liberty: "A product of your life and liberty is your property." So, yes. If we both acknowledge the natural rights to life and liberty, then we also accept the concept of private property.

Of course, if we dismiss those tenets of classical liberalism, then there's no reason to acknowledge private property. However, if this is the case, then either the right to life or the right to liberty will have to be discarded, justifying murder or slavery, respectively.

[Grand Proudhonia]

Why wouldn't we? Private property is pretty fundamental, and not just to humans.

Because we are more than just our instincts?

Just a friendly reminder that humanity is incredibly collective and individualistic at the same time and has no set nature thanks to the degree of our intelligence.... Man can be anything he desires to be so arguments that collectivism or other things are not in our nature are nothing more than complete bullshit

[Ifreann]

Because that's not the point I'm getting at.

I'm telling you directly the point I'm trying to make and the question I'm trying to explore, and you just refuse to understand. It's sad, man.

You mean....like you’re doing with my point now? Cropping out someone’s argument so you don’t have to deal with it seems to be a favourite of yours

I do it with you a lot because you keep going off on tangents. If you don't want to respond to the question I'm asking, then don't, just like how I'm not following you down this rabbit hole of the morality of committing direct harm compared to indirectly allowing harm to happen. Feel free to look up some trolley problems if you'd like.

[Nakena]

Why wouldn't we? Private property is pretty fundamental, and not just to humans.

Because we are more than just our instincts?

Embrace the beast in yourself!

[Nova Cyberia]

Then let's switch up the line of questioning.

Are you advocating for communism? Yes or no?

I don't know if I'd say I'm advocating for it. I'd say I'm explaining my thoughts on the whole thing. You know, discussion. Kinda the point of this forum.

People usually come at discussions from different perspectives. That's... usually how discussion works. Are you coming at it from the perspective of being for communism or against it?

[Nova Cyberia]

Why wouldn't we? Private property is pretty fundamental, and not just to humans.

Because we are more than just our instincts?

Indeed. That's why we do it more intelligently with laws and whatnot.

[Grand Proudhonia]

This distinction only works if you accept the concept of private property, so…

According to John Locke, natural rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." The Philosophy of Liberty: "A product of your life and liberty is your property." So, yes. If we both acknowledge the natural rights to life and liberty, then we also accept the concept of private property.

Of course, if we dismiss those tenets of classical liberalism, then there's no reason to acknowledge private property. However, if this is the case, then either the right to life or the right to liberty will have to be discarded, justifying murder or slavery, respectively.

Who died and made John Locke the king of what is natural and what is not lmao

One published philosopher is not the end all be all, especially when said private property at the time included the literal ownership of individuals... I mean Locke literally defends slavery so his idea of liberty being a natural right, though I agree with him, is extremely flawed private property is not a right

[Ifreann]

I don't know if I'd say I'm advocating for it. I'd say I'm explaining my thoughts on the whole thing. You know, discussion. Kinda the point of this forum.

People usually come at discussions from different perspectives. That's... usually how discussion works. Are you coming at it from the perspective of being for communism or against it?

I think Communism's a pretty cool guy. Eh talks to dolphins and doesn't afraid of anything.

Is this not clear?

[Nova Cyberia]

People usually come at discussions from different perspectives. That's... usually how discussion works. Are you coming at it from the perspective of being for communism or against it?

I think Communism's a pretty cool guy. Eh talks to dolphins and doesn't afraid of anything.

Is this not clear?

No, shitposts are not clear, Iffy. Sorry.

C- for effort, though.