Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/7/03 11:26 AM, Big1Rob wrote: Bush is by far the worst president. I mean even in his death, his legacy(dick chaneY) will screw us.

You see its idiots like you who really piss me off. People like you will take a president who they disagree with and label them the worst ever just because they are in clear view. You are the sort of person who bitches about how terribly persecuted you are when you have never even tasted true persecution. You have to have some perspective on things or at least provide some support for your argument before making such a claim.

In 4 years you'll be bitching that who ever is president then is the worst ever if they don't happen to follow what you deem to be the proper path.

At 5/5/03 07:04 AM, bigboy007007 wrote: kill all the presidents and all the ministers

You know I find it hi fucking larious that you spout an anarchistic phrase like "kill al the presidents" while simultaneously posting a Soviet sickle a symbol of government beuracracy and control in its most extreme.

At 5/5/03 01:07 PM, Slizor wrote:
This is where I disagree with you, the definition. I would say it is a belief in freedom, not freedom from the government.

If one is not free from the government one is not free.

Not true. They could think that to maximise freedoms state intervention is needed, nothing is more restricting than poverty.

Except totalitarian communist regimes.

Anyone going around saying "I'm a social libertarian but not an economic one" is in a sense saying:
"I believe people should have freedoms, but at the same time I think government interaction concerning some programs like welfare, etc."

Heh, you appear to be using a very old model of politics. Do you deny that people can be socially free and not economically free?

He may not but I sure as hell do. The right to ownership is of vital importance if a government doesn't respect what you own then how do you expect them to respect your civil liberties?

That's the antithesis of Communism. Economically it thinks people will always exploit someone else (as pretty much all of history will attest to.) So it stops that. It says nothing about social freedoms.

It stops that by destroying individual rights. Where as a system like capitalism exploits it for the good of society.

Clearly you have failed to realise that the word "Libertarian" is not wholey owned by those spouting Ayn Rand and doesn't just apply to her views. It is a belief in Liberty, the way to get there can take many roads.

Enslavement to government beuracracy is a pretty fucked up path to take towards liberty.

Republican Voting Moderate Libertarian

At 5/4/03 10:20 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: Goat-loving-psychopath

Why Ted I'm flattered

At 5/3/03 12:04 AM, karasz wrote:
idiots are not just liberals, idiots are communist, socialist, republican, federalist, independent, constitutionalist, green, reform, reform 2, (the group that left that didnt want buchanan in '00), libertarian, and conservative... MEANING idiots are all around...

That sir is a damn dirty lie! We Libertarians are without sin.

At 4/27/03 04:14 PM, Slizor wrote: Well first off, no I wouldn't. And secondly we come back to the other "communist nations". With such shallow analysis you are unable to say A) wheter the states set out to be democratic B) if it was external circumstances dictating policy and C) why it happens. Please do not be so glib next time.

You aren't honestly saying that you would support a totalitarian state as long as it was communist?

A) This is a valid point, however the fact that it has never been attempted attests to it's impossibility.

B)External circumstances dictating policy is no excuse for totalitarianism. The U.S. infringed upon civil liberties to protect ourselves from a supposed communist conspiracy during the days of McCarthyism (though to a much lesser degree than the Soviets did) and the fact that The Soviet Union was a valid threat did not make us right. Like wise U.S. competition cannot excuse Soviet attrocities.

C) As I have explained many times the overwhelming beuracracy inherent to a communist system inherently leads to abuse of power.

Greater work? Hah. I don't see why education and intelligence should be linked to pay. Intelligence is pretty much to do with nature and education...well that's like a job in a Communist system.

You are contributing more to society, thus you deserve more out of it.

But have you done the work, or has those hundreds of hours been actually done by people.

You have a very simplistic definition of work and economics Slizor. Work is not neccesarily pounding nails in a factory.

Or as an even more notable example say that you are an inventor and you invent something that makes man's life or work easier (for a simplistic example take the cotton gin, invented by Eli Whitney)then you are contributing the same amount as thousands or millions of workers.

No, you are contributing an idea, the idea is then implimented. It's like saying the people who make paint....actually paint rooms (this example is due to the fact that I was painting.)

Its nothing like that. A good idea is more valuable than a great deal of unguided labor. Ideas allow for more efficient work and production and a better quality of life. You still fail to realize that not all work is physical much of it is mental.

There has never been a society comprised entirely of intellectuals.

No there has not, but would you not agree that history moves towards more intellectuals?

No I would not. If anything people are getting dumber.

They is a distinct difference between working less and contributing less. Some people could say make a table in half an hour, now me, in that half an hour I could make like a table leg. We have both worked hard, but he has contributed more. Why should lazy "talented" people be paid more than people who work very hard and manage little?

He has contributed a greater percentage of the production amount. Thsu, he is entitled to more of the profits. Why should the skilled man work harder to build said table in half an hour if he cannot profit from his effort? If he is going to be paid the same why doesn't he just spend five minutes making a table leg and then go out for a smoke?

Because it would not be good for him. He puts into society, he gets out of society. He puts less into society, society has less to give, thus he gets less.

You still seem to believe that the average man is so far sighted that he can connect his own personal efforts with the good of society. Men are self serving creatures even if you brainwash the concept into these people that their labor is needed to support the state, few will ever feel that socity hinges on the faster production of the table they are making.

At 4/27/03 07:58 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

At 4/27/03 07:14 AM, Slizor wrote:
I didn't call you a fuckwit, fuckwit.

lol then what was that?

That was rather obviously a joke.

At 4/26/03 10:23 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 4/23/03 08:26 PM, implodinggoat wrote: I don't like Democrats because they think that American citizens need to be treated like children.

So you prefer to see them treated like an inconvenience, like the Republicans do?

Say, was it a good idea to type that? Jeez, set yourself up, why don't you?

Do you really want the government to be sitting around constantly treating you like you are unable to think, or fend for yourself? I would rather have a government that is more apathetic and less controlling.

Besides I am a Libertarian, I vote Republican because they are infinitely superior to the Democrats even if they do have their flaws.

At 4/27/03 06:47 AM, Slizor wrote:

You have yet to prove that it can ever work.

That has nothing to do with the idea being "inherently flawed."

I would say if it can't work without turning into a totalitarian state then it is inherently flawed wouldn't you?

It keeps on coming back to this, the Soviets were not Communist! And relatively speaking, yes they were. And you ignored the point about management not having to be upper class, remember this before you bring it up yet again.

The management doesn't need to be upper class, however management level positions are deserving of more pay for the greater work, education, and intelligence recquired. Also management needs to make tough decisions if you have the management as an extension of the workers then efficiency would plummet.

Why? If it is natural? Anyhow, you can not contribute a lot more than most people. I mean, think about it, you can not honestly work 500% harder than someone else.

Yes you can. Say that you are a manager for a company and your strategies allow for more efficient production across an entire company. You are in effect contributing the equivalent work of hundreds or thousands of workers. Or as an even more notable example say that you are an inventor and you invent something that makes man's life or work easier (for a simplistic example take the cotton gin, invented by Eli Whitney)then you are contributing the same amount as thousands or millions of workers.

How hard you work is unimportant, it is how much you can contribute.

Yeah....it's not like people actually like to learn.

No the average man does not. You are sitting in an ivory tower Slizor. You may enjoy reading about philosiphy and political theory but your average man is uninterested in knowledge for its own sake. Most men will only desire to learn what will benefit them.

It may be true in this society, but it is not inherently true. Although I do dispute the idea that people are uninterested in knowledge for it's own sake. Everyone has hobbies, things that don't earn them anything yet they like doing.

There has never been a society comprised entirely of intellectuals. It all comes back to the "natural aristocracy" point. Each man is born unique and not inherently equal with his fellow man. Most people simply lack the intelligence to speak intelligently with someone such as you or I.

They is a distinct difference between working less and contributing less. Some people could say make a table in half an hour, now me, in that half an hour I could make like a table leg. We have both worked hard, but he has contributed more. Why should lazy "talented" people be paid more than people who work very hard and manage little?

He has contributed a greater percentage of the production amount. Thsu, he is entitled to more of the profits. Why should the skilled man work harder to build said table in half an hour if he cannot profit from his effort? If he is going to be paid the same why doesn't he just spend five minutes making a table leg and then go out for a smoke?

At 4/26/03 04:46 AM, jimsween wrote:

At 4/23/03 08:26 PM, implodinggoat wrote: I don't like Democrats because they think that American citizens need to be treated like children.

Boy that was fun, your turn.

I dont like repeublicans because they want to gove money to rich people. Now I'm gonna get a lecture about the trickle down theory.

You misunderstand, it is not that the Republicans gove money to the rich, the rich still pay a much higher percentage of their salary even under Republican policies. The republicans merely believe in not making welfare state policies. Should a man not be entitled to what he has earned?

At 4/26/03 09:00 AM, Slizor wrote:
He didn't "invent" the system, and you are still yet to prove that it is inherently flawed.

You have yet to prove that it can ever work.

Management doesn't need to be upper class and workers don't need to be mindless, well they do in a Capitalist system.

Ahhh yes the Soviet working class was very well educated weren't they?

All men are created equal when it comes to the law but when it comes to ability there is as Thomas Jefferson but it "a natural aristocracy amongst men".

I don't deny this, I just don't think that thius "aristocracy" has to be reflected in society. Also note: that in a capitalist society ability is not linked to wealth.

I have few things going for me other than my intelligence. It allows me to donate contributions to society that your average man could never do. I expect to be rewarded for my talents. A man is entitled to what he contributes.

Further more without the potential of being rich few people will bother to take harder jobs or take their education farther.

Yeah....it's not like people actually like to learn.

No the average man does not. You are sitting in an ivory tower Slizor. You may enjoy reading about philosiphy and political theory but your average man is uninterested in knowledge for its own sake. Most men will only desire to learn what will benefit them.

One cannot estabilish total equality by raising all those who are low, it can only be done by tearing down those who are high.

Actually both things have to be done, it's the middle ground.

Throwing cash at a man will not truly raise him. You have pointed out before that those who do not work are not content. Likewise those who are paid disproprotionately for their work have simialar problems. Those with greater talents feel cheated by the government (as they are) and contempt for those who contribute less but recieve equal pay, while those who work less are forced to deal with the knowledge that they are a pariah, and that they are not self made men, but merely a reflection of the state.

At 4/25/03 08:09 PM, bengui wrote:

At 4/9/03 06:00 PM, kospas wrote: Communists suck because they want a nev Russia or North-Korea in every freakin' country. And they never learn. Communism is a dictatorship and many people don't seem to realize that.

Most people associate communism with dictatorship, propaganda, abuse of power...But Marx never talk about this in his books. Communism means equality, and the power to the proletarian class. I think the problem in capitalism is the rich people. If there were no rich people, there were no poor people.

Marx never talked about it in his books because he was more of a philosipher than a political theorist. Thus he invented a system that is inherently flawed and has led billions of people into dictatorship.

As for your comment about there being no rich people without the rich there is no management or upper class and you have an entire society of mindless workers. All men are created equal when it comes to the law but when it comes to ability there is as Thomas Jefferson but it "a natural aristocracy amongst men".

Further more without the potential of being rich few people will bother to take harder jobs or take their education farther.

One cannot estabilish total equality by raising all those who are low, it can only be done by tearing down those who are high.

At 4/24/03 03:18 PM, Slizor wrote:
The average would increase as the amount of money in actual use would rise while strict price controls prevent inflation. This would have the bonus effect of increasing demand....which means more jobs.

Simply adding money into the system doesn't work. The Confederate states of America tried it and it didn't work to well.

At 4/24/03 03:29 AM, OSC wrote:

At 4/23/03 08:39 PM, implodinggoat wrote: But Democrats don't have any good ideas.

Yes, they do. They provided a very good idea on how best to use a cigar. :-)

Groucho Marx came up with that bit in 1932.

At 4/23/03 09:15 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Harry Brown

Its Harry Browne.....that guys great.

Also I would like to know how you would feel if the government stormed into your house took half of what you owned and handed it out to a homeless crack addict because he is naturally entitled to all the priveliges that a man who actually works for their money does.

For that is what you are proposing.

Your math is flawed. The average cannot be increased by redistributing wealth. You see the average would be the grand total of wealth divided by the total population which is a constant.

However if the government were put in charge of the redistribution of wealth the money needed to fund the neccesary beuracracy, the amount taken by corrupt officials, and the amount lost due to governmental inefficiency would skyrocket thus reducing the total amount of cash while keeping the population even so that in fact the average amount earned by an American citizen would in fact drop.

But Democrats don't have any good ideas.

I don't like Democrats because they think that American citizens need to be treated like children.

Boy that was fun, your turn.

At 4/23/03 07:23 AM, Slizor wrote: Nah nah nah no. See this argument rests on confusing two different areas. See a dictatorship arises out of a weakness in the electoral system or the constitution. It has nothing to do with the power of the "government".

It has everything to do with the power of the government. Constitution's can be circumvented by corrupt men like Hitler. However the more power the government has the easier it is to set up a dictatorship. If you already have a huge amount of power at your whim as in a communist system it will be much easier to create a full blown dictatorship than it would in a weaker government.

Actually the reason I don't call it altrusitic is that it gave countries vouchers instead of money...these vouchers only being redeemable at store America.

What is your point? Can you argue with the results?

At 4/22/03 05:28 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 4/22/03 03:05 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote:

I never said I was an anarchist. I am promoting anarchist ideology.

That in itself is an oxymoron. By definition there cant be an anarchist manifesto or something of the such.

Thats Nihilism Sweeney

At 4/22/03 12:56 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
God how we all love the first ammendment. Coming right before the one that says you have a right to carry a gun on the streets.

I'm fond of that ammendment as well.

At 4/22/03 12:27 PM, NJDeadzone wrote:

At 4/22/03 10:56 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

I don't think there's been a single President that hasn't womanized.

That president that lasted 2 months because he was sick probably didn't get any action...

That would be William Henry Harrison and it was one month. However there have been many presidents who haven't been avid womanizers. If you are single its fine but cheating on ones wife shows an utter lack of respect for women. Amazing that they still pulled for Bill even after he disgraced the presidency.

At 4/22/03 01:58 AM, karasz wrote: so cutting taxes and averting nuclear winter are criteria for half decent presidents in ur view... what if he were a republican and cut taxes and averted nuclear war??? where would he rank then?

To be fair Kennedy came closer to getting us nuked by the Russians than any other president with stunts like the Bay of Pigs invasion.

At 4/22/03 02:44 PM, Slizor wrote: I agree with your point that some nations have tried to become communist states and have turned into dictatorships. But the majority of Communist states were dictatorships to start with. I also don't agree with your little analysis there, you are going to have to prove to me that the dictatorship arose out of the beuracracy....since it is your central point.

Its impossible to prove such an assertion definatively. My point is that a government is only as powerful as the people make it. Since a commnist government is already very powerful by definition it is easier for it to turn into a dictatorship than a system based around a more limited government.

Again, you lack detail here. After World War 2 Western Europe was reuilt using the Marshall Plan (this was not an altruistic move by the US btw.) Whereas Eastern Europe got little from an extremely damaged Russia. Also, on the eastern front there was the policy of scorched earth, which was far more destructive.

No it wasn't a totally altruistic move thus the brilliance of it. It managed to do great humanitarian good while simultaneously setting up the trading markets of the present.

You have some valid points here, however the fact that the Marshall plan was implimented by a capitalist superpower while its communist counterpoint allowed Eastern Europe to fall to shambles also has some signifigance.

Your comment about the United States is irrelevant. We are talking about the speed of industrialisation, not the ability to industrialise.

The U.S. industrialized very quickly after we entered WWII.

We could have won without the Russians. It wouldn't have been easy but it could have been done. Eventually we would have beat the Germans to the bomb via the Manhattan Project and the war would have ended quickly.

I don't think a country which would rule basically the whole of Europe and Russia would give up that easily because of a nuclear weapon.

You underestimate the sheer power of nuclear weapons Slizor. If a country had the ability to impliment nuclear strikes without retaliation as the U.S. could at the time there is little any nation could do in retaliation. If nulcear weapons were used against the Germans Hitler might not surrender but his power base would dissapear and he would have been overthrown.

At 4/22/03 03:03 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: People want all these different types of government. People even pick sides and judge people on what type they choose. Why do you need people telling you what to do? Fuck the government.

Beacuse if you don't choose one and just say "Fuck the government" then you ar doing nothing to promote the form of government you would like. I take it you think yourself an anarchist which would indicate that you dislike government. If you chose to support a party like the Liberterians instead of just mindlessly saying "fuck the government" you could be doing something to scale back the government you dislike rather than mindlessly rebelling.

Hitler was born a human being, he made himself into a monster. Thus he sacrificed any rights he may have had as a human being.

At 4/21/03 09:32 PM, jimsween wrote:

At 4/21/03 09:26 PM, implodinggoat wrote: *Yanks out broadsword*

That reminds me of my dream last night, boy that was a cool dream.

Ugghhhhh Jim, I know my comments about my broadsword may get you a little excited but I'm really not interested in you that way.

Its Bush as the U.S. president (One could make an argument for Soviet Premier) has been the most powerful position on the planet since 1945.

However if you don't want a president of a nation then I would say Kofi Anan although the U.N. has thankfully seen its power trimmed as of late.