Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/10/05 04:12 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: how is Britain not on that list?

It is. Check near the bottom.

Corruption is bad economically. It raises the costs of doing business, as in a corrupt country one cannot do business without paying off certain people. Bribery gets expensive, and that is why companies are very reluctant to invest into corrupt countries. The most successful countries, economically, are also the least corrupt.

Evidence
http://www.nationmas..eco_gdp_ppp_cap/flag

http://www.hawaii.ed..lls/DBG.TAB1.2.1.GIF

The top two 20th century murdering-states are communist, as are 7 of the top 15. That's around 50% of the top murdering countries, but the other mudering countries are not unified ideologically.

At 11/10/05 12:12 AM, 7iron wrote: wow the point of the thread was to show how silly and ignorant the labels and party associations with the labels are and yet i have yet to read a post other than thorfalcons that hasn't used them...

You're kidding, right?

... this countries inhabitants would of voted in hitler

Godwin!

Liberals are for free markets. The Republicans believe in free markets. Liberals believe in freedom of behavior, something the Republicans do not believe in. True liberalism does not fit what conservatism is labeled today. It is more like libertarianism, only less extreme. I guess I should add that there are a whole host of poitical labels out there. We in the US only have (corrupted forms of) liberal and conservative, but there are also social democrats, new rightists, christian democrats, communists, greens, mercantilists, secular conservatives, religious conservatives, fascist, nazis, anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists, monarchists, radical democrats, and so on.

Us true liberals must take the word back! WE ARE LIBERALS! We are for free markets, free trade, free speech, free thought, and freedom of behavior! Freedom is what liberalism is all about.

A Christian is someone who puts their trust in Christ. Even Satan believes in Christ, but only a few people put their trust in him. Being Christ-like is an effect of being a mature Christian, but it is not the definition.

At 11/9/05 03:02 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:
It turns out that in the leading democratic capitalist country of the South, in fact of the world, if you count population, that country alone up until about 1980 has produced about 100 million dead, the same number that’s attributed to all the communist countries of the 20th century in the world." Here near the bottom

The deaths are not caused by the state. They are caused by poverty, a legacy of British imperialism. Even if India was communist, it would have had the same crushing poverty. Communism does not end poverty. The solution for India was development. All kinds of social programs won't help if there are no resources to carry them out.

afliXion
Please, you're getting nowhere by equating not being saved with being a liberal. I am pretty liberal, yet I am also a devout Christian. You do have the right message about salvation, though. Salvation is not anything that any person can do, but what God has done. He sacrificed himself in order to atone for our sins. All that we have to do on our part is trust in Jesus. That's it. None of this "good works" nonsense. Belief is all that matters. Nothing political about that, so please dont throw around the word "liberal".

Liberalism can mean different things. The simple meaning of liberalism is being in favor of change. The longer meaning is the idea that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people. These rights are life, freedom, and property. The American meaning of liberalism (cause we Americans like to screw stuff up) means the idea that the government should ensure equality in society. The second meaning of liberalism is the most true one, the one you will encounter in political science writings and the like. The third meaning is akin to the rest of the world's definition of socialism.

Now that liberalism has been defined, I would like to say that using one's ideology as a dirty word is stupid. I will admit that I've misused the word "nazi" before, but it really just obscures the true meaning of the word.

At 11/8/05 04:07 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

Rights are not guaranteed.

Nor are they in the USA at the moment. Google 'guantanamo+bay' and see quite how right I am. I have more examples if you are interested.

I have not said anything about the USA. Even if I did, what makes you think that I would be in support of torture? I am not a blind supporter of anything the government does. Governments exist to protect peoples' freedom, and right now, the USA is not doing so. I am in opposition to rights abuses under any regime. It is even worse in the US because we have legal documents, such as the Constitution, that protect people's freedom, but are being ignored.

The marxist variant of communism is atheist. When an idea is so intellectually stifling that it dictates what people believe on such a fundamental level as religion, that idea is totalitarian.

Not exactly totalitarian, but I take the point you are trying to make. Shariah Law is Muslim, would you call that opressive? Besides, the point is ill informed - you are talking about Communism generally, clearly, from the long comment you made above about the economy. Thus arguing that Marxism is the same as Communism is like saying Nazism is the same as being German.

I think the correct analogy would be nazism being the same thing as fascism. When most people refer to communism, they mean marxism. I do not know what you have in mind when you write about communism. Are you a marxist revolutionary? Or are you just a social democrat? I am vehemently opposed to marxism. I think social democrats are all right, though I would still oppose them politically. Marxism is totalitarian. If you are in favor of it, then we will never agree.

Communism advocates violent revolution. Revolutions are always bad.

Didn't you Americans have a revolution you all seem quite keen on? Correct me if my history is bad.

That revolution was bloody and would have fallen apart were it not for the utmost integrity of George Washington. I would have not supported the revolution had I lived in those days, but what is done is done. Even so, while Americans revolted for freedom, among other things, America lagged behind Britain in some aspects of freedom. Britain ended slavery 30 years before the US did, and actively sought to stop slavery worldwide. The intellectual climate in Britain was a lot less stifling, because dissenters in America, while also not persecuted legally, were socially ostracized. As de Tocqueville wrote, there was a monolithic popular will in America, and those who contradicted it were shunned.

Reform is preferrable to revolution in almost all circumstances.

But not always possible; read 'Das Kapital', us Reds like that book quite a lot.

Haven't read it, but until I do, I still maintain that reform is better.

Communism does not work.

A Communist would say that Capitalism does not work. (He would then go on to give an INTELLIGENT argument for a change). You can't make a statement like that without some kind of point.

This has been the whole point of my entire post. Anyways, the 1989 revolutions have shown that the people of eastern Europe have rejected communism.

It has empirically been shown to always be totalitarian

Democratic Peoples' Republic of Lea, and how do you empirically 'prove' an ideology anyway?

All communist regimes have been totalitarian. Communism under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and others have always sought to eradicate all private space, and the state has invaded all areas of life in those regimes.

It has caused more deaths than any other ideology.

How does an ideology kill people? That's like saying rap music leads to violence by actually carry guns itself. Maybe more Communists have killed people than Capitalists, but somehow I doubt that.

There was a flaw in how I expressed myself. I did mean to say that communists have killed more people than nazis, fascists, theocrats, and certainly liberals. Since monarchists has been around for so long, I don't know if they have caused less deaths than communists. However, I still maintain that nobody is above the crimes committed by communists. Nazis committed the same sorts of crimes, and so on. It is just that communism has been widespread that has led to so much communist violence. Communists are a lot more violent than liberals, conservatives, and social democrats, though.

It is also thoroughly useless as a vehicle for prosperity.

Can I suggest that if you knew anything about Communism you would realise that Communists don't want to 'prosper' - they want to make sure everyone has an equal chance to live a comfortable life.

Communism does not care about equal chances to live a comfortable life. Communism concerns itself with everybody living equally. It is free-market capitalists that want everybody to have an equal chance to succeed.

Communists have projected their ideas so forcefully that even non-communists have come to believe that communism is a good idea in theory.

"Capitalists have projected their ideas so forcefully that even non-capitalists have come to believe that capitalism is a good idea in theory" - what is the difference between these two arguments, other than the view of the respective arguee? Oh, its fallacious on so many levels its unreal.

I am reacting against the popular sentiment that communism is good in theory. It is not good in theory. It is bad, even disregarding the popularly parroted "human nature" nonsense. Communism has failed, though people still cling to it being good in theory, even though free-markets and capitalism is what is succeeding.

Sorry if I have been a bit forceful, please feel free to reply if you feel I have been unfair with any of my points, its nothing personal, I just like my arguing.

I never take political arguments personally. I love arguing over political matters. You can still be a cool guy and be a communist, but I would not vote for you.

At 11/8/05 04:07 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: Time to argue

At 11/6/05 07:15 PM, Jlop985 wrote: Communism is bad even in theory. It has several fundamental flaws.

Even if what follows in your post is perfect reasoning (Hint: It isn't), you have already proved you are closed minded - Capitalism has a lot of flaws in theory - even a Capitalist will tell you that.

Free-market capitalism has no flaws in theory, because it is based in empiricism. Adam Smith was an empiticist, adjusting what he believed to what he actually observed. He came up with the foundations for capitalism, and he actually wrote that capitalism could not solve everything. In that sense, capitalism is limited, but it is not flawed. Its goal is to increase the general prosperity of all, while also providing maximum freedom in economics.

Communism separates people into two groups- the good and the bad.

And seeks to turn them into one group. Capitalism divides people into different groups too - Lower, Middle, Upper class, for example, almost perfectly parallels Prole, Bourgoise and Landowner.

Communism may seek to make one class of people, but this has always been done by eliminating the so-called bourgeoisie. Therein lies the problem. A goal of communism is to exterminate a whole segment of society. Free-market capitalism does not delineate groups, stating that one is good and one is bad. Everybody is similar in capitalism. There are richer and poorer, but they are not separate. Nobody is to be eliminated.

The truth is that everybody is equally fallible.

Rubbish. You show me Einstein's Theory of Relativity compared to my last maths homework, and I will show you two people with different levels of fallability. I would also suggest that when you read this, you will disagree with me. That means one of us is more fallable regarding Political Idealology than the other, right?

I am referring to moral fallibility. Both of us are equally capable of doing the most heinous acts of murder and violence. We may not do it, based on our convictions, but we are not above these things. In the same way, the proletariat is no morally superior than the bourgeoisie.

There is no freedom in communism. Everything is subject to the will of the people.

Damn, and there I was thinking democracy meant that the power was, in theory, totally with the people, not with some ruling party. Also, saying something inflammatory like 'there is no freedom' without actually using a definition for freedom is a recipie for intelligent people to come and beat you up.

Freedom is the ability to do what one wants to do, without interference from others. For everyone to be free, they must also respect each others' freedom. This is my definition. If everything is subject to the will of the people, then even freedom is at stake. A council of the people can, if they are not restricted, take anyone's property, force anybody into servitude, and even have people killed. This can be especially true in communism, where only one part of the people is represented.

But the will of the people is manipulated to fit the idea of communism.

Can I suggest something to you you might not have considered? If CAPITALISM manipulated your thoughts, somehow, that is exactly the kind of thing you might say, and then not back up with any kind of evidence. Just a thought.

Communism is a totalitarian ideology. Everybody in a communist society must believe in it, or they are enemies of the society. If someone claims something as their own, then they are not following communism and must be expelled or executed. There is no freedom in this respect. Under capitalism, you can choose to live in a commune, or choose to live in any way that can sustain your lifestyle. Disagreeing with capitalism does not put you infundamental opposition to present society.

continued...

Taken from the other communism thread:

Communism is bad even in theory. It has several fundamental flaws.
Communism separates people into two groups- the good and the bad. There are good people, the proletariat, and the bad people are the bourgeoisie. Every ideology that divides people into categories is dangerous. What is the ultimate logical step in such ideologies? Get rid of the "bad" people, or kill. them. It is no different from dividing people into other "good" and "bad" groups, such as aryans and Jews (nazism), or commoners and aristocrats (jacobinism). The truth is that everybody is equally fallible. Nobody is morally superior to anybody. Ideologies that recognize this are non-violent, and work to ensure the good of everyone.

There is no freedom in communism. Everything is subject to the will of the people. Not only is that true, but the will of the people is manipulated to fit the idea of communism. There is nothing that a communist government cannot do. Rights are not guaranteed. Therefore, it is legitimate when the great mass of the people have their revenge upon the capitalists.
Communism gives the state too much power. The state has control over the economy, and can decide who gets what. People in the government can abuse this power very easily, even to the point of causing starvation of those who they do not like. Because the state has control over the economy, people are made dependent on the state. This forced dependence is degrading to people, and it makes them slaves of the state.

The marxist variant of communism is atheist. When an idea is so intellectually stifling that it dictates what people believe on such a fundamental level as religion, that idea is totalitarian.

Communism advocates violent revolution. Revolutions are always bad. Only seldom do good outcomes come from revolutions, and even then, they are mostly bloody, so that there is an unacceptable cost to them. Reform is preferrable to revolution in almost all circumstances. If certain changes are not possible through reform, then it is most likely that the proposed change will cause a reaction that is often violent.

Communism does not work. It has empirically been shown to always be totalitarian and grave threat to freedom. It has caused more deaths than any other ideology. It is also thoroughly useless as a vehicle for prosperity. Capitalist free-market societies are always more prosperous than communist societies (or corrupt kleptocratic societies for that matter). Development can occur under communism, but it is very costly in terms of lives. Free-market development is much better than communist development.

Communists have projected their ideas so forcefully that even non-communists have come to believe that communism is a good idea in theory. Communism is as bad in theory as it is in practice, and even its failure in practice should be an indication that it is useless.

Tariffs are a bad idea. No one country can make everything that it needs, or at least not as well as some other countries can. Some countries are better at making computers, and some are better in making airplanes. The division of labor between countries should be encouraged because prosperity will rise under free trade. Tariffs are just a nationalist tool used to prop up uncompetitive businesses. Tariffs and other forms of protectionsim are what is keeping the third world poor. Take away tariffs and subsidies (especially those ridiculous farm subsidies) and then people in poor countries would not have to compete at an artificial disadvantage. Wages in rich countries and poor countries will become equalized, ending the gap between rich and poor countries. Also, consumer products will become much cheaper for ordinary people to buy.

Revolution and stagnation are not the only options. Reform is much more preferable to the previous two. Everyone needs to be included in the establishment. You are right in disliking revolution. Revolutions almost always either cause violent counter-reactions, or become radicalized and violent in pursuit of their goal.

Forgive the lack of indentations in the post. I did try to indent, but that did not show up.

Communism is bad even in theory. It has several fundamental flaws.
Communism separates people into two groups- the good and the bad. There are good people, the proletariat, and the bad people are the bourgeoisie. Every ideology that divides people into categories is dangerous. What is the ultimate logical step in such ideologies? Get rid of the "bad" people, or kill. them. It is no different from dividing people into other "good" and "bad" groups, such as aryans and Jews (nazism), or commoners and aristocrats (jacobinism). The truth is that everybody is equally fallible. Nobody is morally superior to anybody. Ideologies that recognize this are non-violent, and work to ensure the good of everyone.
There is no freedom in communism. Everything is subject to the will of the people. Not only is that true, but the will of the people is manipulated to fit the idea of communism. There is nothing that a communist government cannot do. Rights are not guaranteed. Therefore, it is legitimate when the great mass of the people have their revenge upon the capitalists.
Communism gives the state too much power. The state has control over the economy, and can decide who gets what. People in the government can abuse this power very easily, even to the point of causing starvation of those who they do not like. Because the state has control over the economy, people are made dependent on the state. This forced dependence is degrading to people, and it makes them slaves of the state.
The marxist variant of communism is atheist. When an idea is so intellectually stifling that it dictates what people believe on such a fundamental level as religion, that idea is totalitarian.
Communism advocates violent revolution. Revolutions are always bad. Only seldom do good outcomes come from revolutions, and even then, they are mostly bloody, so that there is an unacceptable cost to them. Reform is preferrable to revolution in almost all circumstances. If certain changes are not possible through reform, then it is most likely that the proposed change will cause a reaction that is often violent.
Communism does not work. It has empirically been shown to always be totalitarian and grave threat to freedom. It has caused more deaths than any other ideology. It is also thoroughly useless as a vehicle for prosperity. Capitalist free-market societies are always more prosperous than communist societies (or corrupt kleptocratic societies for that matter). Development can occur under communism, but it is very costly in terms of lives. Free-market development is much better than communist development.
Communists have projected their ideas so forcefully that even non-communists have come to believe that communism is a good idea in theory. Communism is as bad in theory as it is in practice, and even its failure in practice should be an indication that it is useless.

A person's greatest enemy, apart from supernatural entities and whatnot, is his or her own will to hold power over others. People tend to favor themselves at all costs, and do not take into consideration the needs of others. The solution to this is to follow the golden rule, which establishes peace and harmony between people.

Liberty and security are not totally mutually exclusive. As may have been pointed out, a certain level of security is necessary for liberty, as one can be enslaved to fear and survival. If everyone was out to get everyone else, I wouldn't have much freedom, because everything I do would be because of survival.

How about a super-Congress? Government is more than just the president. Or maybe a sane/non-corrupt Supreme Court after yesterday's ruling?

http://www.petitiononline.com/lp001/petition.html

To: U. S. Congress

PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVENCES

We the People of the United States, do hereby demand that our duly elected representatives in both houses of Congress, initiate impeachment proceedings against the following Supreme Court Justices:

John Paul Stevens
Anthony Kennedy
David H. Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen G. Breyer

We, the undersigned, consider the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, 04-108, rendered June 23, 2005, not only unacceptable, but to be in criminal violation of the Justice's oaths to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Be advised that We the People regard elected officials to be our public servants. Failure to take action against the Justices specified shall be considered support for the decision rendered in the aforementioned case, and will result in our resolve to ensure your defeat in the next election.

Being from myriad political and ideological spectra, we are united in our belief that our right to own property is inalienable.

Sincerely,

__________

Hitler was a terrible leader. Sure, he may have helped recover Germany from the depression, but only because he ignored the Versailles reparations. He made Germany worse off as he led it into a destructive war because of his policies.

http://newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=293731

I already have posted about this ruling. Sad times indeed.

At 6/24/05 12:57 AM, PLUSgood wrote:

if im not mistaken, supreme court is final. so moral, appointments now cannot make a difference.

It settles the issue at the federal level, but action can still be taken at the state level.

And MoralLibertarian, I do mean that liberals (true liberals) should not support this ruling. Modern leftists have hijacked the name of liberal, and I am trying to claim it back. Liberals believe in the government protecting one's right to life, liberty, and property. Leftists, though, believe in using the government to further the collective good. Leftists are more like socialists than liberals. In America, the right has become moralistic and conservative, and the left has become socialist. There are few liberals left in America. Maybe the confusion stems from me being a political science major, and knowing the difference between the liberalism of Locke and Jefferson and the "liberalism" of today.

A lot of it is insecurity. Some believe there is something inherently evil in the German mind, but this is a very dangerous line of thought, one that Nazis used. Yes, what the Nazis did was atrocious, but their capability for atrocity are not limited to themselves. Everybody is equally fallible, and anyone is capable of doing the horrible things that the Nazis did. Labeling a specific group inherently evil is exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Teddy Roosevelt has already been mentioned, but I second him as a great leader. Truly concerned for the poor and respected blacks. Later in life he even supported women's suffrage and full racial equality when even arch-liberal president Wilson opposed those.

I think some leaders that are overlooked are the leaders of recent freedom movements, particularly those standing against communism. Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, and others faced imprisonment and economic hardships in order to stand up for liberty and democracy.

The interesting thing is that the leftist justices voted in favor of the ruling. I won't say that the justices are liberal, because there is nothing liberal about this. The rightist judges actually took the liberal position and voted against the ruling. So don't blame the right on this.

Supporters:
Stevens
Kennedy
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer

Dissenters:
Rhenquist
O'Connor
Scalia
Thomas

This is not just ordinary eminent domain. Cities seizing land for roads and stuff has been going on for a long time. What is new is that cities can now seize land for a new Wal-Mart or a Holiday Inn- PRIVATE COMPANIES.

What is wrong about this is its disregard for non-tangible value. If a home has been in the family for generations, the market price is not going to reflect that. Also, this encourages corruption, as companies can pay off city officials for seizing land, and it would be cheaper than going into direct negotiations with the property owner.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...u_co/scotus_seizing_property_2

This is the day that government has ceased to protect your property rights. This is the day that theft has been legalized. The US Supreme Court has ruled that local governments can seize private property and hand it to a private entity for development. In other words, the city can take your house and give it to a corporation.

Now I don't hate corporations very much. I am as capitalist as they come, but this is an egregious violation of all Americans' right to their own property. If the government does not protect your rights, then what purpose does it serve?

I will write my state representatives to urge them to pass legislation against this. Everyone reading should also contact their state officials, because the courts' ruling bars any action at the federal level. This is a very important issue. Tell those you elect that the government exists to protect EVERYONE, not promote a group over others.

There are a lot of misunderstandings in this topic on both sides, but I'll adress one of them.

The Sudanese genocide is being perpetrated by people from the Arab Muslim north against the Black Christian and Animist south.